What Will the 'Pledge' Ruling Be? It's Your Guess
by Allie Martin and Jody Brown
March 26, 2004
(AgapePress) - Constitutional attorneys and conservative leaders are voicing their predictions about the ultimate outcome of the Pledge of Allegiance case now before the U.S. Supreme Court. They all apparently agree on one thing: it's hard to predict what the final ruling will be.
The chief counsel for the American Center for Law & Justice says the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance is consistent with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Jay Sekulow attended oral arguments at the Supreme Court earlier this week in the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow.
"The fact is that in our government documents, our founding documents, our statements from our founding generation -- references to God are numerous; and to start excluding those, which would be the end result if the Pledge was deemed unconstitutional, I think, would be a violation," the attorney says.
The ACLJ head believes most Supreme Court justices realize what is at stake in the case. "The Pledge of Allegiance says who we are as the American people," Sekulow says. "I think the phrase 'under God' in the context of the pledge encapsulates what our founding generation believed: that our rights, freedoms, and liberties derived from God to mankind."
According to Sekulow, if those rights, freedom, and liberties were derived only from government, the government could take those rights away. "[But] they did not come from government," he explains. "Government's job is to protect those liberties. It was a very different worldview [held by the founding fathers] on how our rights, liberties, and freedoms originate."
Sekulow, who made his comments on the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), filed a brief in the case on behalf of 68 members of Congress and more than 260,000 Americans.
Will It Be Tossed Out?
Another legal group believes the high court will seriously consider dismissing the Pledge case entirely because Michael Newdow, the atheist who originally brought the case to court in California, did not have legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Pledge on his daughter's behalf. The Thomas More Law Center, which filed a friend of the court brief in the case, notes that both attorneys defending the Pledge raised that issue before the Supreme Court.
According to TMLC president and chief counsel Richard Thompson, Newdow apparently does not feel the issue has validity. "Mr. Newdow did not adequately address the issue of standing before the Court," Thompson says. But that is not necessarily a good thing, the attorney adds.
"The Court could dismiss this case without ever deciding whether the words 'under God are constitutional. If such a decision is reached, it is only a matter of time before the issue will return," he says.
Still, Thompson points out an interesting irony on the constitutionality question. He says the two words "under God" are a patriotic expression that signifies the nation's historic and religious traditions, upon which is built America's system of laws and which recognize the reason those freedoms are enjoyed today.
"Ironically, this God-given freedom is what endows Mr. Newdow with the right to voice his opinion that there is no God," Thompson says.
| | 
Dr. Richard Land |
Richard Land 'Cautiously Optimistic'
A spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention says he is "cautiously optimistic" about the high court upholding the Pledge as constitutional. Dr. Richard Land of the SBC's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission says those who argue that utterance of the phrase "under God" while voluntarily reciting the Pledge in public schools constitutes government endorsement of religion are uttering "dangerous nonsense."But he offers a prediction of what could happen if the court ruling goes the other way: "If the high court strikes down the phrase from the Pledge, we will witness the fastest ratification of an amendment to the Constitution in American history," Land says.
"Such an amendment, which would guarantee Americans' right to use the phrases 'under God' in our national pledge and 'In God We Trust' as our national motto, would surf the crest of a wave of overwhelming public outrage to rapid ratification," he says, noting that more than 90 percent of Americans want the Pledge to remain as it is.
Gary Bauer: Judicial Tyranny Could Prevail
Gary Bauer of American Values says it is impossible to predict how the Supreme Court will rule on the matter. He says if five of the justices vote to retain the Pledge as it currently stands, it will only be because the court "is afraid to push the envelope any further."
Gary Bauer | |
Bauer blames the nation's judges for an increasing cynicism he sees among the American people, who see judges behaving as though they "govern by divine right" -- despite the fact they were not elected to public office. At best, he says, "their elitist rulings reflect ... a gross disregard for our values.""No matter the issue -- partial-birth abortion, prayer in schools, the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance, even the meaning of marriage -- our judges are increasingly hostile to the cherished and deeply held beliefs of most Americans," the conservative spokesman says. "No one should be surprised if the [Supreme] Court does in fact declare the Pledge illegal."
He contends such a ruling would just be consistent with recent history -- and that the trend will continue as long as the American electorate puts in office leaders who are serious about bringing "judicial tyranny" to a halt.
Newdow Wanted Capitol Hill Chaplains Booted
Meanwhile, Michael Newdow had interjected his atheistic agenda on another front, but was turned away. According to Associated Press, a federal judge has rejected Newdow's claim that taxpayer-funded chaplains in Congress violate the constitutional ban on government-sponsored religion.
U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., released his decision Wednesday, the same day Newdow was at the Supreme Court arguing that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional government promotion of religion. Newdow had raised the issue of House and Senate chaplains in a 2002 lawsuit against Congress. He sought to have the jobs abolished.
