Newdow Challenges to Pledge and Motto to Be Heard by 9th Circuit Tuesday
Posted on December 3, 2007
Spokesman for militant atheists, Michael Newdow, is taking his fight against the word that offends him the most to the 9th Circuit. He is taking on two fights at once.
Two blockbuster religious liberty cases - involving the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools and “In God We Trust” on our money - will be heard this week by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider will be arguing alongside lawyers for the Department of Justice in defense of the national motto, “In God We Trust.”
Both lawsuits were filed by atheist Michael Newdow, who claims that the Pledge of Allegiance and national motto are unconstitutional “establishments” of religion. Ninth Circuit judges have previously heard and agreed with Newdow’s position that it violates the First Amendment to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. However, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned that decision on jurisdictional grounds, prompting Newdow to re-file it with additional plaintiffs. The lawsuit against “In God We Trust” was filed by Newdow in late 2005. Pacific Justice Institute intervened as a co-defendant in the lawsuit to defend the constitutionality of the national motto. The Supreme Court has never decided a case directly dealing with the motto, but in several other cases Justices from across the ideological spectrum have pointed to the motto as an example of constitutional expression.
PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider, who will be presenting arguments in the motto case tomorrow, commented, “The national motto, ‘In God We Trust,’ is a perfectly permissible, commemorative acknowledgment of our nation’s history and traditions. Without coercing anyone to adopt any religious viewpoint, it reminds us that our rights are a gift from God and are not at the discretion of the government.”
The ACLJ will be fighting against this.
In the complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that they “generally deny that God exists, and maintain that their constitutional and statutory rights are abridged when the school district Defendants participate in making the purely religious, Monotheistic claim that the United States is ‘one nation under God.’†The Plaintiffs do acknowledge and stipulate that none of them are actually compelled to say the words “under God†in the Pledge of Allegiance. They feel that they are being coerced, though, to participate simply because the Pledge is being given with the phrase “under God†as mandated by Congress. The lawsuit also alleges that the Student-Plaintiffs have been “forced to confront the government’s claim that this is one nation under God as their public school teachers have repeatedly led them and their classmates in reciting the now religious Pledge of Allegiance in their classroom and at school assemblies.â€
We are going to be filing an amicus brief on behalf of the ACLJ and our members around the country in response to this most recent attack on the Pledge of Allegiance. You can join our Committee to Protect “Under God” in the Pledge by clicking here. I have assembled a senior research team to put our brief together on behalf of your members and concerned citizens throughout the United States. We will keep you posted.
Last time he tried attacking the pledge he lost in a 8-0 ruling with the U.S. Supreme Court on standing. This time, he’s found an anonymous atheist couple claiming their offense that he will defend. Motive? Nah.
This guy is like a cockroach that just won’t go away.
Generation X Conservative says it well:
Since the government is not forcing Michael Newdow or his atheist compatriots to practice Christianity, his case should be thrown out, but since judges like to create new laws and new interpretations of the Constitution as often as Bill Clinton drools over a woman who is not Hillary, we have to worry every time one of these cases come up.
If I have to make a prediction I will say he wins at this level. We are talking about the 9th Circuit after all. It will be appealed though, and if it gets back to the Supreme Court there will be a different ball game.
A little treat for you all:
Also see: How Appealing
First Amendment Law Professor
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Church And State, News
Trackback URL
Comments
6 Responses to “Newdow Challenges to Pledge and Motto to Be Heard by 9th Circuit Tuesday”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Suggestions
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
I agree that he will win at the Ninth. Why won’t the government actually do something positive and disband that group on the grounds that they are not able to read?
There is nothing in our constitution, or any other government document, separating Church & State and even the ACLU cannot show me where it is stated in any way, shape or form in our constitution. It is purely false.
This guy needs to move out of America and go to some other country where they don’t believe in God!
There is separation of State and chruch in the constitution, it is in the FIRST amendment…
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”
The phrase building a wall of separation between church and state was written by Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.
When you force children to say “under God,’ you are violating the Constitution. And which God? This nation filled with Muslims, Buddhists, and Wiccans. It is against what America stands for. The Pledge should be restored to it’s traditional from, before the phrase “under God” was ADDED by zealots. Those that disagree should move. The US Constitution was the world’s first secular constitution. There are plenty of countries in the world that mention God in their Constitution, American isn’t one of them.
Why should we have to move from this country just because we think that God
should stay in the pledge? This country was founded by Judeo-Christian values.
There are more people in this country that believe in God and think that “Under
God” should stay in the pledge. Why should we have to cave to a bunch of nut jobs
that doesn’t believe in God. And I hate to tell you that no one is forced to say
the pledge. This man is a wacko who doesn’t even have a case. He will most likley
win this case in the 9th circuit, but he won’t have a chance if it goes to the
Supreme Court.
I think Newdow makes a good point. The First Amendment ensures that the government shall not inhibit, nor encourage the establishment of religion. This neutrality protects all beliefs equally. How can anyone argue that our government proclaiming “one nation under God” or “in God we trust” does not encourage the establishment of religion?
Is a class recitation led by a teacher really ‘voluntary’? Would an oath which your boss or employer leads you in public, as he watches you, really be ‘voluntary’ even if he says it is? I don’t think do.
“I want to be treated equally,” said Michael Newdow. He added that supporters of the phrases “want to have their religious views espoused by the government.”
That’s what the case is about, and Newdow is right.