Judge Rules Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional
A federal judge in California Wednesday ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional.
Published Sep 14, 2005
(CNSNews.com) - A federal judge in California Wednesday ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional.
The case was brought by two families represented by Michael Newdow, an atheist who case before the U.S. Supreme Court was thrown out because it was brought on his daughter's behalf and he did not have custody of her.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton said the words "under God" violate the right of school children to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." According to the Associated Press, Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of Newdow in 2002.
Conservatives were quick to condemn the ruling.
"This is an extraordinary and blatant display of judicial activism. Judge Lawrence Karlton relied on the activist ruling of the Ninth Circuit which was rendered inoperable by the Supreme Court's ruling on this issue last year," said Kay Daly, president of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary, in a statement.
"He claims it was precedent, but as an experienced judge, he knows better. Clearly, this is a ruling by a judge who is obviously an activist who legislates from the bench to enact his own agenda," added Daly.
Daly said the latest Pledge of Allegiance ruling demonstrates why Judge John Roberts should be confirmed to be chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
"This is precisely the reason we need Judge Roberts to be confirmed as Chief Justice. He's made it clear that he puts the law and the Constitution first. And he's made it clear that he won't substitute his own values for the clear commands of the law," said Daly.
Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, called the ruling "dismaying" but "not surprising."
"This history of the Pledge of Allegiance illustrates that the phrase 'under God' is a permissible acknowledgement rather than an establishment of religion. If the Pledge established or tended to establish a religion, then that would have happened during the past 50 years of its existence," said Staver in a statement.
"Day after day we have recited the Pledge from the classroom to the stateroom, from private meetings to public events, and not once has it tended to establish a religion," Staver said. "Today's ruling illustrates why we need judges who are umpires applying settled law rather than activists intent on imposing their own ideology."
The Liberty Counsel filed a brief in the Newdow case when it was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The counsel also plans to file a brief in this case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals followed by the Supreme Court if it goes that far.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which specializes in constitutional law, called Wednesday's decision "legally flawed" adding that it "underscores the importance of who serves on the Supreme Court of the United States."
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, expressed hope that the "flawed decision" will eventually be overturned.
"This is another example of a federal district court exhibiting hostility toward a time-honored tradition which has been defended by numerous Justices including Justice O'Connor who said eliminating such references 'would sever ties to a history that sustains this nation even today,'" said Sekulow in a statement.
"The Pledge clearly acknowledges the fact that our freedoms in this country come from God, not government," Sekulow added.
Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-Brief.
E-mail a comment or news tip to Melanie Hunter.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
The case was brought by two families represented by Michael Newdow, an atheist who case before the U.S. Supreme Court was thrown out because it was brought on his daughter's behalf and he did not have custody of her.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton said the words "under God" violate the right of school children to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." According to the Associated Press, Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of Newdow in 2002.
Conservatives were quick to condemn the ruling.
"This is an extraordinary and blatant display of judicial activism. Judge Lawrence Karlton relied on the activist ruling of the Ninth Circuit which was rendered inoperable by the Supreme Court's ruling on this issue last year," said Kay Daly, president of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary, in a statement.
"He claims it was precedent, but as an experienced judge, he knows better. Clearly, this is a ruling by a judge who is obviously an activist who legislates from the bench to enact his own agenda," added Daly.
Daly said the latest Pledge of Allegiance ruling demonstrates why Judge John Roberts should be confirmed to be chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
"This is precisely the reason we need Judge Roberts to be confirmed as Chief Justice. He's made it clear that he puts the law and the Constitution first. And he's made it clear that he won't substitute his own values for the clear commands of the law," said Daly.
Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, called the ruling "dismaying" but "not surprising."
"This history of the Pledge of Allegiance illustrates that the phrase 'under God' is a permissible acknowledgement rather than an establishment of religion. If the Pledge established or tended to establish a religion, then that would have happened during the past 50 years of its existence," said Staver in a statement.
"Day after day we have recited the Pledge from the classroom to the stateroom, from private meetings to public events, and not once has it tended to establish a religion," Staver said. "Today's ruling illustrates why we need judges who are umpires applying settled law rather than activists intent on imposing their own ideology."
The Liberty Counsel filed a brief in the Newdow case when it was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The counsel also plans to file a brief in this case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals followed by the Supreme Court if it goes that far.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which specializes in constitutional law, called Wednesday's decision "legally flawed" adding that it "underscores the importance of who serves on the Supreme Court of the United States."
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, expressed hope that the "flawed decision" will eventually be overturned.
"This is another example of a federal district court exhibiting hostility toward a time-honored tradition which has been defended by numerous Justices including Justice O'Connor who said eliminating such references 'would sever ties to a history that sustains this nation even today,'" said Sekulow in a statement.
"The Pledge clearly acknowledges the fact that our freedoms in this country come from God, not government," Sekulow added.
Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-Brief.
E-mail a comment or news tip to Melanie Hunter.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Originally published September 16, 2005.
