An atheist seeking to remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance and U.S. currency is taking his arguments back to a federal appeals court.
Michael Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, sued the Elk Grove Unified School District in 2000 for forcing public school children to recite the pledge, saying it was unconstitutional.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Newdow’s favor in 2002, but two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Newdow lacked standing to sue because he didn’t have custody of the daughter on whose behalf he brought the case. He immediately filed a second lawsuit on behalf of three unidentified parents and their children.
In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento found in favor of Newdow, ruling the pledge was unconstitutional because its reference to “one nation under God” violates children’s rights to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.” The judge said he was following the precedent set by the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling in Newdow’s first case.
The Declaration of Independence should be ruled unconstitutional and removed from textbooks as well (“endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights” hmph!).
If I were a Supreme Court justice my opinion would be three words: Get over it! So far the Supremes have ruled that reasonable acknowledgments of God, particularly ones with a historical pedigree, are permissable. The unanswered question is what is “reasonable”.
Oops, ignore my #2 comment, which belongs on and has been posted to the Woodward article on Romney.
As for the revival of this suit, I just yawned. People will go on including “under God” whatever the courts say.
“People will go on including ‘under God’ whatever the courts say.” Yep, and the courts won’t lift a finger to stop them, either!