FLINT logo
Families Link International
Tel:0781 886 1724
home | issues | policies | family groups | courts | court reporters | research | law | contacts | donations | Useful Quotes |

Family Groups - Fathers - preserving the value of the father

From http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0618/p08s02-cole.html
Preserve the value of fathers, family
Regarding your June 15 article "Court keeps 'under God' in Pledge": The
Supreme Court has diminished the value of family by declaring that
Michael Newdow cannot speak for his daughter because he is somehow less
than a dad. The justices ruled that he does not have the legal authority
to speak for her because he does not have sufficient custody of his
daughter. Regardless of how one feels about the 1954 insertion, "under
God," the Supreme Court certainly sidestepped the issue by pretending
that Newdow lacks the legal standing to present his case. Dads are
essential in the lives of their children. Let's remember that on
Father's Day and every day.
Don Mathis
San Antonio

Regarding http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0615/p01s01-usju.html
Court keeps 'under God' in Pledge
It rules that the California father who brought the case doesn't have
legal standing. By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science

WASHINGTON - The California atheist who took his battle against the
words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance all the way to the US
Supreme Court should have never gotten into a federal courthouse in the
first place.
Instead, his potential blockbuster constitutional law case fizzled away
Monday when the nation's highest court ruled that he lacks the necessary
legal standing to challenge the Pledge as a violation of the separation
of church and state. The action, coming coincidentally on Flag Day,
means that schoolchildren nationwide can continue to recite the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag, including the words "under God."

In the end, the court may have opted for the most pragmatic route. "It
is a way out for the court," says Douglas Laycock, a law professor at
University of Texas at Austin. "It was politically impossible to strike
it down, and legally impossible to uphold it."

Some legal experts are expressing disappointment that the high court
declined to address the broader issue, and many say the decision sets
the stage for yet another church-state showdown.

"The justices ducked this constitutional issue today, but it is likely
to come back in the future," says the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive
director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Michael Newdow filed suit in objection to his daughter's participation
in teacher-led recitation of the Pledge at her elementary school in the
Elk Grove school district in California.

In an anticlimactic ending to what would have been a landmark case, the
nation's highest court ruled 5 to 3 that Mr. Newdow did not have legal
authority to file the lawsuit.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the US Supreme
Court must defer to California domestic court decisions that gave
exclusive power to the mother of Newdow's daughter to file such a case.

"This case concerns not merely Newdow's interest in inculcating his
child with his views on religion, but also the rights of the child's
mother as a parent," Justice Stevens writes. "Most important, it
implicates the interests of a young child who finds herself at the
center of a highly public debate over her custody, the propriety of a
widespread national ritual, and the meaning of our Constitution."

Joining Justice Stevens were Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. Justice Antonin Scalia recused
himself from the case because of prior public comments he made
criticizing an earlier ruling in the case.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and
Clarence Thomas concurred in the outcome but said they would have
reached the merits of the case and upheld the Pledge of Allegiance.

"There is no doubt that [Newdow] is sincere in his atheism and rejection
of a belief in God," Chief Justice Rehnquist writes. "But the mere fact
that he disagrees with this part of the Pledge does not give him a veto
power over [recitation of the Pledge]."

By deciding the case based on the standing issue alone, the majority
justices avoided addressing the broader and potentially more problematic
issue in Newdow's case - whether school recitation of the Pledge amounts
to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by the government.

Despite the apparent dodge, some legal analysts say they are pleased
with the broader outcome - that all earlier rulings by the San
Francisco-based Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals declaring the Pledge
policy unconstitutional are reversed.

"The Supreme Court has removed a dark cloud that has been hanging over
one of the nation's most important and cherished traditions," says Jay
Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice.

At issue in determining standing was whether Newdow, who is not married
to his daughter's mother and who does not live with his daughter, had a
recognizable legal stake that entitled him to object to the Pledge
policy at his daughter's school.

The mother, Sandra Banning, says neither she nor her daughter objects to
participating in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Ninth Circuit had ruled that a non-custodial parent, like Newdow,
has the right to challenge government policies that affect his or her
child and are presumptively unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

The majority justices ruled that Newdow's legal standing turns on his
parental status as defined by California domestic relations laws. Newdow
has a right to instruct his daughter in his religious views, the court
says. But Stevens adds, "The California cases simply do not stand for
the proposition that Newdow has a right to dictate to others what they
may and may not say to his child respecting religion."

The decision dismisses Newdow's lawsuit. In it he had objected to his
daughter being subjected to teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of
Allegiance every morning under a statewide policy.

He argued that the federal law that added the words "under God" to the
Pledge - which Congress passed 50 years ago to the day - converted it
into an impermissible endorsement of religion by the government.

In June 2002, a panel of Ninth Circuit judges agreed with Newdow. By a
2-to-1 vote the panel ruled that the modified Pledge was an
unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

Eight months later, the panel dropped its endorsement finding and
narrowed its ruling by focusing instead on California's policy of
teacher-led recitation of the Pledge. The appeals court panel ruled that
requiring teachers to lead students in reciting the words "under God" as
part of the Pledge converted a daily profession of patriotism into a
coerced religious act.

If upheld by the high court, the panel's ruling on the Pledge issue
would have made it unconstitutional for teachers in California and 43
other states with similar policies to lead their students in reciting
the Pledge as long as the words "under God" were included in it.

Under a Supreme Court ruling issued in 1943, public school students may
not be required to stand and repeat the Pledge of Allegiance. Supporters
of the Pledge said this decision suggests that those who object to the
word "God" in the Pledge may choose to not repeat the Pledge or simply
not repeat the word "God" in the Pledge.

The appeals court rejected the reasoning of the 1943 ruling, saying that
just the act of performing the Pledge in the presence of any objecting
students was a form of impermissible coercion to participate in a
government-authorized religious act. The appeals court applied the
neutrality rationale used by the high court in 1992 to strike down the
offering of a prayer at public middle school graduation ceremonies.

The contents on these pages are provided as information only. No responsibility or liability is accepted by or on behalf of FLINT for any errors, omissions, or misleading statements on these pages, or any site to which these pages connect, whether provided by FLINT or by any organisation, company or individual. No mention of any organisation, company or individual, whether on these pages or on other sites to which these pages are linked, shall imply any approval or warranty as to the standing and capability of any such organisations, companies or individuals on the part of FLINT. All rights reserved.