Dissent

9-0 vote

Rule of Law

My own argument

I agree with the Supreme Courts ruling to dismiss the case more than just because of the technicality. I believe that a child over the age of 5 can make some decision on there own. In this case Newdow was making the decision of weather or mot his daughter was harmed by listening to or reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. I know that most people would call me crazy and said children have little idea of right and wrong but when it comes to curtain things children have just as much idea as and adult like in this case religion.
I don’t agree with the 9th circuit courts ruling that the phrase “Under God” out of the pledge. When this country was founded it was founded on the bases of religion so having that stated in the Pledge of Allegiance. Children have the freedom to choose weather or not to recite the pledge at the beginning of the day. I believe that something like saying the Pledge of Allegiance is good it instills a sense of pride and nationality in a person. You don’t have to agree with everything a country believes to want to protect it. When I joined the military I didn’t agree with everything that the country was doing at the time but I wanted to protect the things I did agree with. Bad mouthing the beliefs of the founding fathers or our government I believe is an act of treason. If Newdow believed that the phrase “Under God” really hurt his daughter and took away his right to teacher his beliefs to her than he had better not take her near any churches or he better sue the churches also for displaying their beliefs for all to see.

Newdow vs. US Congress

In the case of Newdow vs US Congress Newdow, an atheist, was against the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools specifically the phrase “Under God”. Newdow stated that the Pledge of Allegiance force religion on the students especially his daughter and also violated the separation of church and state. He also stated the addition of the phrase “Under God” in 1954 was done unconstitutionally and therefore is should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. Newdow said that even thought his daughter is not forced to say it she is injured just watching and listening to it and seeing a state-employed teacher leading it.Newdow requested that the president and the US Supreme Court remove the words “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance because it was unconstitutionally added and because it violated the separation of church and state. On this issue the district courts have no authority to make this request for one the president has no authority to amend statute or declare a law unconstitutional this act being reserved for congress and federal judiciary only. Thus the case was brought to the US Supreme Court."
Congress Confirms 'God' in Pledge, Motto ." US Government Info. 19 Mar

2009 ."MICHAEL A. NEWDOW vs United States District Court ." UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. June 26, 2002. 7 Mar 2009 .

Pacific Hieghts

Pacific Heights is a movie about a couple who buys a house and rent out the lower portion. The first couple is a nice oriental couple who seem very nice but the second occupant is trouble. The first sign of trouble is when he comes to see the studio and claims to have spoken to the girlfriend about the place already but when the guy asks her about it she has no idea who he is. Another is the fact that he can't give the landlord any of the information he requests to do a credit check instead he tries to buy him off and leads him on a wild goose chance. Then he invites himself in and saying he was told he could be there for the telephone install. I think I would have called the cops right away when he wouldn’t answer the door the first time I tried to go in. I really don't think the law is right in this case. If a bum takes up residents in my garage he doesn't have rights to anything and I should be able to kick him out right away without any legal recourse.

First monday in October

In this movie some good points were brought up on both sides of the argument. On one side the fact of protecting the innocence of the country and the people and keeping the natural progression of decay in a sense down. Chief Justice Ruth is fighting to keep porn off the streets and people like Malhoney from calling their work art and defiling the beauty of innocence, while Chief Justice Snow is trying to keep the people from losing their freedom of speech. Justice Snow does not agree with the film in fact he called it crap but he is defending it simply on the fact that if they make Malhoney stop he is having his freedom of speech taken away.I feel that the Supreme Court should always be made up of men and women because of the fact that the opposite sex looks at things differently. If there were a case in front of the court about women’s rights than I don’t think that an all male court could make that right decision on the case because they don’t have the opinion of a female on the problem. There are always two arguments to every problem and I think having a female in the court can help view both sides.On the issue of pornography I feel to each his own. I don’t both with what other people do in their own life as far as that goes. On the other hand I would feel differently if they started making porn more easily accessible to children now I know that you can get it easily on the internet but you do have to provide so kind of proof that you are of legal age to view it via a credit card so it is not out there for the children to get easy access to

Reasoning of the court

The Supreme Court dismissed the case due to Newdow not having the right to speak for his daughter since he was is the middle of a divorce and losing parental control.

When congress passed their bill they listed many historical reasons in which it states the importance of God and religion in American government and history. One being Thomas Jefferson who wrote “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God. That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever." Also the phrase “The Year of our Lord” in Article VII of the Constitution would render the entire Constitution unconstitutional.

Cline, Austin. "Supreme Court Dismissed Pledge Case." 21 Mar 2009 .

Longley, Robert . "Brief history of the Pledge of Allegiance." About.com. 19 Mar 2009 .

Decision of the court

In June of 2003 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in favor of Newdow but this was met with great opposing and the ruling was appealed and over turned. In the following month’s attorney from every state asked the Supreme Court to hear the case and the Supreme Court agreed. On March 24 2004 the Supreme Court heard the case.

The Supreme Court ended up dismissing the case on the grounds the Newdow did not have standing to challenge the Pledge of Allegiance.

Congress passed a bill in response to the case and along with it modified the manner in which the Pledge of Allegiance should be delivered. When not in uniform, men should remove any non-religious hat, cap or headdress. The previous requirement was for men not in uniform to remove any headdress.
In a previous case in West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette the Supreme Court had ruled that any government run school could not force students to say the Pledge of Allegiance or punish those who refused which contradicted a previous case Minersville School District vs. Gobitis which stated schools could require students to learn and recite the Pledge of Allegiance as a form of pride and nationality

Cline, Austin. "Newdow v. U.S. Congress." Agnosticism / Atheism. 19 Mar 2009 .

Newdow vs. US Congress, et al. ." Knowledgerush. 19 Mar 2009 .

"MICHAEL A. NEWDOW vs United States District Court ." UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. June 26, 2002. 7 Mar 2009 .

Issue of Case

When the Pledge of Allegiance was first written in 1892 it was “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” then in 1923 it was revised to “I pledge allegiance to the Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” and was finally recognized by congress in 1942. In 1943 the Supreme Court ruled that students in public school were not forced to recite the pledge. The final change to the pledge was made in 1954 by President Eisenhower when he added the words “Under God” to the pledge stating that "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

In the Supreme Court the issues that were discussed where weather or not the act of adding the words Under God into the Pledge of Allegiance where protected but the Speech and Debate Clause or not. Also weather on not the phrase goes against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment where is says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” and also Separation of Church and
State, the court looked to see whether or not the acts fall within the legitimate legislative sphere, if they did congress was protected. The question was, was the phrase “Under God” added for worthy purpose if not the act was unprotected. Last the court looked to see if Newdow had standing to challenge the Pledge of Allegiance.

"MICHAEL A. NEWDOW vs United States District Court ." UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. June 26, 2002. 7 Mar 2009 .

Longley, Robert . "Brief history of the Pledge of Allegiance." About.com. 19 Mar 2009 .

Facts of case

In the case of Newdow vs US Congress Newdow, an atheist, was against the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools specifically the phrase “Under God”. Newdow stated that the Pledge of Allegiance force religion on the students especially his daughter and also violated the separation of church and state. He also stated the addition of the phrase “Under God” in 1954 was done unconstitutionally and therefore is should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. Newdow said that even thought his daughter is not forced to say it she is injured just watching and listening to it and seeing a state-employed teacher leading it.

Newdow requested that the president and the US Supreme Court remove the words “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance because it was unconstitutionally added and because it violated the separation of church and state. On this issue the district courts have no authority to make this request for one the president has no authority to amend statute or declare a law unconstitutional this act being reserved for congress and federal judiciary only. Thus the case was brought to the US Supreme Court.

"Congress Confirms 'God' in Pledge, Motto ." US Government Info. 19 Mar 2009 .

"MICHAEL A. NEWDOW vs United States District Court ." UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. June 26, 2002. 7 Mar 2009 .

Final Project update

In reading up on this case I have found that Newdows issue is not so much that the words “In God We Trust” are offensive to him it is that making teachers lead their classes in the pledge of allegiance takes away some of the parents decision in the religious upbringing of their children and can contradict what they are trying to teach their children about religion. In this case Newdow is an atheist and by having the teachers state that there is a god it contradicts what he is teaching his daughter. His main argument is that the words “In God We Trust” never should have been allowed to be added because Congress went against the US Constitution.
I will not be here next week but for the following week I hope to have the reason for the case being before the Supreme Court and the rulings of the case written