Guide to covering ‘Under God’ pledge decision
UPDATED SEPT. 17, 2005
On Sept. 14, 2005, a U.S. District Judge ruled that the phrase “Under God” is unconstitutional in the Pledge of Allegiance, again setting the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue. On June 14, the Supreme Court left the phrase intact when it ruled that atheist Michael Newdow lacked legal standing to pursue the case.
The Supreme Court’s June ruling did not directly address the issue of referencing God in the pledge. If the new ruling, by the U.S. District Court in California, is appealed to the Supreme Court, the court may be forced to rule on the constitutionality of the phrase. Newdow filed the case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. The new ruling applies only to three school districts in California.
In June, three justices issued concurring opinions strongly stating that the pledge does not violate the Establishment Clause, leading scholars and court watchers to conclude that those who wanted “Under God” removed probably would have lost had the court decided on the phrase’s constitutionality.
The case is rich in symbolism and emotion, and many experts discount its legal importance. Yet it raises a core question that is at the heart of many political and social debates in this country: What place does God have in the government of a predominantly Christian nation that includes people of many faiths and of no faith at all?
Read a Sept. 14, 2005, Associated Press story about a California District Judge ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance’s phrase “under God” violates the rights of school children in three school districts. It’s posted by NewsChannel 5.
Jump to:
• History of the Newdow pledge case
• U.S. government involvement in the case
• The Supreme Court and the pledge
• History of the Pledge of Allegiance
• Polls
If this case moves to the Supreme Court, several outcomes are possible:
• The court could agree with the lower court’s decision, thereby declaring the words “Under God” unconstitutional.
• The court could overturn the lower court’s ruling and uphold the current form of the pledge.
• Depending on the status of court appointments, the court could split its vote 4-4, because Justice Antonin Scalia recused himself from the case, and the 9th Circuit ruling could be upheld.
Most court watchers, First Amendment specialists and scholars have predicted that the court would preserve the pledge on the grounds cited by Justice David Souter during oral arguments in Newdow’s first case in March – that the usage of “Under God” in the pledge is a kind of “civic exercise,” something that is “is so tepid, so diluted, so far from a compulsory prayer, that it should, in effect, be beneath the constitutional radar.”
Court watchers also pointed out an irony inherent in any decision. If “Under God” is upheld, as most of the nation hopes, it likely would be because the justices would say that reciting it is a rote civic exercise with little or no religious meaning. That idea offends many of the religious people who support keeping the phrase. Yet if “Under God” is removed, as many atheists and church-state separationists have hoped, it would be because the phrase carries religious meaning. The backlash could lead to a broad, unified push for a constitutional amendment that would ultimately make the boundaries between church and state more permeable, especially in the nation’s schools.
National sources
SUPPORT ‘UNDER GOD’ IN PLEDGE
• Jay Sekulow is chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, a public interest law firm based in Washington, D.C., that specializes in constitutional law. It filed an amicus brief in May with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to take the Pledge of Allegiance case from California in which a federal appeals court has declared the phrase “one nation, under God” to be unconstitutional. The ACLJ, which supports the position of the U.S. Department of Justice, represents more than 30 members of Congress, who are listed in a news release. See the ACLJ’s Pledge of Allegiance resource page. Contact Gene Kapp, 757-575-9520.
• The Anti-Defamation League, which fights anti-Semitism and bigotry, disagrees with the federal appeals court ruling that the phrase “one nation, under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. Read a June 2002 news release. Regional office contacts are posted here.
• Charles Haynes is a senior scholar and director of education programs at the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va. He had expected the court to uphold the pledge on the grounds laid down by Justice Souter in oral arguments – that “Under God” is a patriotic statement, not a religious one. But that, he had said, would be contrary to what religious supporters of the pledge actually want. In the case of a ruling for Newdow, he had warned, backlash could include enormous momentum for a constitutional amendment that would permit more government display of religion. Contact 703-284-2859, chaynes@freedomforum.org.
• Robert A. Destro is professor of law at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., and co-director and founder of the Interdisciplinary Program in Law & Religion. He is helping represent the Knights of Columbus, the source of the “under God” wording in the pledge. He helped file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, contending that the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional. Contact 202-319-5202, destro@law.cua.edu.
• Stephen Aden is a lawyer with the Christian Legal Society, which filed an amicus brief in support of the pledge. The brief rationalizes keeping “Under God” along the lines of the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that all individuals are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” Contact 703-642-1070.
AGAINST ‘UNDER GOD’ IN PLEDGE
• The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, supports the 9th Circuit’s ruling. Read a February 13, 2004, press release and FAQ. Contact 202-466-3234.
• Stephen Wermiel, an associate professor of law at American University Washington College of Law, specializes in the Supreme Court and in constitutional law. He agrees with the 9th Circuit ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of the “under God” wording. Contact 202-274-4263, swermiel@wcl.american.edu.
• Douglas Laycock is Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in Law and associate dean for research at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin. He supports removal of the words “under God” from the pledge. Read his article for the summer 2002 issue of Religion in the News, “Vouching Towards Bethlehem.” Contact 512-232-1341, dlaycock@mail.law.utexas.edu.
• Susan Jacoby is author of Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism (Metropolitan Books, 2004) and director of the Center for Inquiry, a secular humanist organization in New York City. Contact 212-265-2877, sjacoby@cfimetrony.org.
• Marc Stern is co-director of the American Jewish Congress’ Commission on Law and Social Action. He has said a decision to ban “Under God” could lead to a constitutional amendment enshrining the phrase, a troubling prospect to some church-state separationists who fear that it would chip away at the First Amendment” Contact 212-360-1545, mstern@ajcongress.org.
OTHER SOURCES
• K. Hollyn Hollman is general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs. She and Brent Walker, executive director of the BJC, have predicted that the 9th Circuit ruling will be overturned. Contact 202-544-4226, hhollman@bjcpa.org.
• Mark J. Pelavin is associate director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and an expert on church-state issues. Contact 202-387-2800, mpelavin@rac.org. Rabbi David Saperstein is director of the center. Contact 202-387-2800, Saperstein@rac.org.
• Derek Davis directs the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. He edits the Journal of Church and State. Contact 254-710-1510, Derek_davis@baylor.edu.
• Carolyn Marvin, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, is co-author of the book Blood Sacrifice and the Nation: Totem Rituals and the American Flag (Cambridge University Press, 1999). Contact 215-898-7374, cmarvin@asc.upenn.edu.
• Kenneth Starr is counsel for Sandra Banning, mother of Michael Newdow’s daughter, and a Christian and supporter of the pledge. He is now dean at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif. Contact the school’s office of public information, 310-506-4138.
HISTORY OF THE NEWDOW PLEDGE CASE
This case started in 2000 with Newdow v. United States Congress – a suit by Michael A. Newdow, who is an atheist, against the Sacramento-area Elk Grove Unified School District, where his daughter attends elementary school. He argued that her rights were violated by hearing the pledge, led by teachers, with the words “under God,” recited in school. The case was later complicated when the child’s mother, who had custody, said both she and her daughter are Christian.
• Restorethepledge.com offers a detailed timeline of the Newdow case along with links to associated court documents. (To find it, click on “The Litigation” on the left, and then click the first hot link, “click here for briefs, etc.” in the first item, called “The Pledge of Allegiance Lawsuit.”)
• June 26, 2002: A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules 2-1 that the phrase “under God” constitutes government endorsement of religion and therefore violates the first amendment. Students have a right not only not to say the pledge but also not to hear the words “under God” in the pledge being said by other students, the court said. Read the ruling. The Ninth Circuit includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.
• June 27, 2002: Judge Alfred Goodwin of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stays the ruling.
• Dec. 4, 2002: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel rules that Michael Newdow has standing to pursue his claim in federal court, even though he is not the custodial parent. Read the ruling.
• Feb. 28, 2003: The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ full panel of 24 judges declines to review the three-judge panel’s earlier ruling. The panel did amend the ruling so that it does not restrict the use of the pledge in all public settings, but applies only to public schools where children might feel coerced to recite the words “under God.”
• March 4, 2003: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stays enforcement of the ruling, pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
• April 30, 2003: The Bush Administration asks the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve the words “under God” in the pledge. Read a May 1, 2003, Associated Press story posted by the First Amendment Center. Read the petition United States v. Newdow.
• June 10, 2003: A petition, filed by all 50 state attorneys general, urges the Supreme Court of the United States to consider reversal of the 9th Circuit’s judgment. Read the June 10 announcement by the National Association of Attorneys General.
• June 27, 2003: Michael Newdow files a brief in opposition to the Bush Administration’s request. Check on filings in the case by searching under “Supreme Court Docket Files” for keyword “Newdow.” Documents list the names of petitioners, defendants, attorneys as well as those who filed amicus briefs, along with contact information for all.
• Oct. 14, 2003: The U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear the pledge case. Read an Oct. 14, 2003, Associated Press story posted by the Freedom Forum.
• Oct. 14, 2003: Justice Antonin Scalia recused himself from the case at Newdow’s urging after making public statements about the case.
• March 24, 2004: The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the case. Read the transcript. Read a March 24, 2004, Washington Post story.
U.S. GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN THE CASE
• The U.S. Senate passed a resolution 99-0 the day of the June 26, 2002 ruling, supporting the use of “under God” in the pledge and asking the appeals court to overturn the ruling.
• The U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution 416-3 on June 27, 2002, opposing the ruling.
• On Nov. 13, 2002, President Bush signed into law a bill that reaffirmed keeping “under God” in the pledge and “In God We Trust” as the national motto. Read an Associated Press story posted on Beliefnet.com.
• U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., sponsored a bill in 2003 allowing only the Supreme Court to review a constitutional challenge of the pledge. Read a news release about the bill, “Pledge Protection Act” H.R. 2028. More than 220 members of the U.S. House support the bill. Read and check the status of the bill here by searching for “Pledge Protection Act.” Contact Akin staffer Steve Taylor at 314-590-0029.
• On Dec. 19, 2003, the U.S. Justice Department filed a brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the 9th Circuit ruling on the pledge by declaring that the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious testimonial. Read a Dec. 20, 2003, Associated Press story in the Contra Costa Times.
THE SUPREME COURT AND THE PLEDGE
• In 1940, in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, the Supreme Court ruled that school districts could oblige students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. But three years later, the court overturned that ruling with West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, which said government schools cannot force students to recite the pledge. (Both cases are posted by FindLaw.)
• Read a June 29 Philadelphia Inquirer story about the Jehovah’s Witness children behind Minersville School District v. Gobitis.
• In 1963, Justice William Brennan said that patriotic phrases – such as “under God” in the pledge – “no longer have a religious purpose or meaning.”
HISTORY OF THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
• Read a history of the origin and changes to the Pledge of Allegiance in a June 27, 2002, Associated Press story posted on CBSNews.com.
• Read a history of the Pledge in a June 27, 2002, story from FoxNews.com.
• Read the history of the Pledge of Allegiance from FlagDay.org.
• A June 30, 2002, Newsweek poll found that 9 in 10 Americans think the phrase “Under God” belongs in the Pledge of Allegiance.
• Almost 7 in 10 respondents said that including “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the separation of church and state, according to the 2003 State of the First Amendment Survey, conducted by the First Amendment Center and American Journalism Review.
• Ninety percent of Americans say they believe in God, according to a February 2003 Harris Interactive poll.
• An Associated Press poll found that 87 percent of Americans said the phrase “Under God” belongs in the Pledge of Allegiance, according to a March 24, 2004, AP article posted by the First Amendment Center.
• See a resource page on the case from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, including court documents, news articles and background. The site includes the transcript of a March 19, 2004, Pew Forum discussion by Jay Sekulow and Doug Laycock, who filed briefs in the case.
• See the First Amendment Center’s Pledge of Allegiance resource page and an overview of relevant court cases.
• The web site UnderGodprocon.org posts a variety of resources and historical documents about the debate. It does not take sides on the issue. It also lists other government references to God.
Regional sources
STATE BY STATE
• Twenty-four states enacted new pledge laws or amended policies during 2002 and 2003 legislative sessions. The National Conference of State Legislatures tracks legislation. Go to its Legislative Education Summary Service, click on “Pledge of Allegiance” under “Issue Areas” and click on the jurisdiction you wish to search (all states or particular states).
• The National Conference of State Legislatures tracks Pledge of Allegiance news.
• Read a detailed August 2003 report about what each state requires or recommends, prepared by the Education Commission of the States.
• Akhil Reed Amar is Southmayd Professor of Law at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and specializes in constitutional law. Contact 203-432-4838, akhil.amar@yale.edu.
• An American Civil Liberties Union chapter in Massachusetts admonished a high school in Bellingham for telling parents when their children don’t stand for the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag, according to an April 8 Associated Press story posted by the First Amendment Center.
• Jay D. Wexler is associate professor for law at Boston University and specializes in law and religion, and constitutional law. Contact 617-353-2789, jaywex@bu.edu.
• John H. Garvey is the dean of Boston College Law School and is one of the nation’s foremost authorities on legal issues regarding church and state. Contact 617-552-4340, john.garvey.1@bc.edu.
• Laurence H. Tribe is Ralph S. Tyler Jr. Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School. His expertise includes constitutional law, law and religion, and the Supreme Court. Contact 617-495-4621, tribe@law.harvard.edu.
• New Hampshire Attorney General Peter Heed joined 49 other state attorneys general in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the ruling that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools is unconstitutional, according to an Associated Press story posted posted June 13 by Seacoast Online.
• Mark Silk is director of the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion and Public Life at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn. He has written that the debate over the pledge underlines the difficulty of defining whose God we are referring to in “Under God.” Contact 860-297-2352, Mark.Silk@trincoll.edu.
• Ira C. Lupu is F. Elwood and Eleanor Davis Professor of Law at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., and specializes in constitutional law, law and religion, and separation of church and state. Contact 202-994-7053, iclupu@main.nlc.gwu.edu.
• Robert W. Tuttle is a professor of law at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., and specializes in law and religion. Contact 202-994-8163, rtuttle@main.nlc.gwu.edu.
• David Cole is a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C., who specializes in constitutional law. He is critical of the proposed “Pledge Protection Act.” Contact 202-662-9078, cole@law.georgetown.edu.
• Marci Hamilton holds the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, in New York City. Her specialties include constitutional law, the First Amendment, and law and religion. Read her Findlaw.com August 2002 column, “The Ongoing Fight for Religious Dominance.” Contact 212-790-0215, hamilton02@aol.com.
• Noah Feldman is assistant professor of law at New York University. His expertise includes constitutional law, and law and religion. He is the author of a book provisionally titled Under God? Religion and Government in the American Republic, to be published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux in 2004, and of After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy (FSG, April 2003). He is constitutional adviser to the U.S. government on the Iraqi constitution. Contact 212- 998-6711, noah.feldman@nyu.edu.
• Arthur D. Hellman teaches constitutional law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and is a noted scholar of the federal courts. Contact 412-648-1340, hellman@law.pitt.edu.
• A federal judge ruled that Pennsylvania’s new “patriotism law” violated public and private school students’ rights in requiring them to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or sing the national anthem each morning, according to a July 17 Associated Press article posted by the First Amendment Center. Read more about the federal lawsuit that a high school student and a private school had filed in a Philadelphia Daily News story.
• Nathaniel Persily is an assistant professor of constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania. He says declaring the pledge unconstitutional would require “some fancy footwork” on the Supreme Court’s part. Contact 215-898-0167, npersily@law.upenn.edu.
• Jonathan Zimmerman teaches history and education at New York University in New York City and is the author of Whose America? Culture Wars in the Public Schools (Harvard University Press, 2002). He has written that the real question in the Newdow case is not whether “Under God” belongs in the pledge, but why we need a pledge at all. Contact 212-998-5049, JLZIMM@aol.com.
• Robert Schapiro teaches constitutional law at Emory University School of Law in Atlanta. Contact 404-727-1103, rschapir@law.emory.edu.
• Michael J. Perry is Robert W. Woodruff Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law in Atlanta. His expertise includes American constitutional studies. Contact mperry@law.emory.edu.
• John Witte Jr. is Jonas Robitscher Professor of Law and Ethics, director of the Law and Religion Program and director of the Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Religion at Emory University in Atlanta. Contact 404-727-6980 or 404-727-5588, jwitte@law.emory.edu.
• Robert Alley is a church-state scholar and professor emeritus of humanities at the University of Richmond, Va. His books include The Constitution & Religion: Leading Supreme Court Cases on Church and State (Prometheus Books, 1999). Contact 804-288-8807, ralley@richmond.edu.
• John C. Jeffries Jr. is dean, Emerson Spies Professor of Law and Arnold H. Leon Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law in Charlottesville. His expertise includes constitutional law. His books include, as co-author, Civil Rights Actions: Enforcing the Constitution (Foundation Press, 2000). Contact 434-924-7343, jcj3w@virginia.edu.
• Constitutional scholar William P. Marshall is Kenan Professor of Law at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Contact 919-843-7747, wpmarsha@email.unc.edu.
• Laura Underkuffler is a law professor at Duke University in Durham, N.C., who teaches and writes about law and religion. Contact 919-613-7085, Underkuffler@law.duke.edu.
• John M.A. DiPippa is associate dean for academic affairs and distinguished professor of law and public policy at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law. He teaches about law and religion. Contact 501-324-9438, jmdipippa@ualr.edu.
• Paul E. Salamanca teaches law at the University of Kentucky in Lexington and specializes in law and religion. Contact 859-257-1151, psalaman@uky.edu.
• Mark Modak-Truran is an assistant professor of law at Mississippi College in Jackson and teaches about law and religion, constitutional law and the First Amendment. Contact 601-925-7159, mmodak@mc.edu.
• Blair Scott is the Alabama director of the American Atheists in Madison, Ala. He says he worries that children who opt out of the pledge – including his daughters – may be “ostracized” by others. Contact 256- 489-4546, bscott@atheists.org.
• In a 1992 case in Illinois, three federal judges of the 7th Circuit said “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance did not violate the First Amendment. An atheist, Robert Sherman, had complained about his 6-year-old son having to listen to classmates recite the pledge.
• Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter has joined the attorneys general of 48 other states in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule the federal court decision that the pledge is unconstitutional, according to a June 12 Associated Press article posted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
• Daniel O. Conkle is Robert H. McKinney Professor of Law at the Indiana University School of Law in Bloomington, Ind. He teaches constitutional law, the First Amendment, and law and religion. Contact 812-855-4331, conkle@indiana.edu.
• Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, with attorneys general nationwide, urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit’s ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance, according to a June 12 Kansas City Star article. Read a June 12 Lawrence Journal-World article.
• The Iowa Legislature shelved a bill requiring schoolchildren to say the Pledge of Allegiance, according to a March 14 Des Moines Register story.
• Frank Ravitch, an associate professor of law at Michigan State University in East Lansing, is a scholar of constitutional law and of law and religion. Contact 517-432-6973, fravitch@law.msu.edu.
• The Pledge of Allegiance is now required in Minnesota’s public school classrooms. Read a copy of the law; a link to its legislative history is included.”
• Bettysue Feuer is the Midwest regional director of the Anti-Defamation League in Cleveland. She has said that banning “Under God” from the pledge “could lead to a huge battlefield” in the culture wars. Contact 216-579-9600, Cleveland@adl.org.
• William Schroeder is a professor of law at the Southern Illinois University School of Law in Carbondale, Ill., and has said he thinks the court will unanimously say there is nothing unconstitutional about the words “Under God.” He says he thinks the court will find there is nothing inherently religious about it. Contact wschroe@siu.edu, 618-453-8747.
• Kareem Irfan, chairman of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago, supports maintaining “Under God” in the pledge because “the Constitution demands neutrality, not hostility, toward religion.” Contact council@ciogc.org.
• Edward Wright teaches the eighth grade at Wydown Middle School in Clayton, Mo., and his students have recited the pledge, discussed the “Under God” passage and controversy and come up with their own, alternative pledges. Contact 314-854-6400 or 314-854-6433.
• A federal judge blocked a new Colorado law that required students and teachers to say the pledge, according to an Aug. 15, 2003, Associated Press story posted by News4Colorado.com.
• On March 13, Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt signed into law the “Patriotic Education Act,” which requires all public school students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Those who want to opt out must have written parental consent.
• Paul Finkelman is Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tulsa. His books include, as editor, Religion and American Law: An Encyclopedia (Garland, 1999). Contact 918-631-3706, paul-finkelman@utulsa.edu.
• A new law, signed by Gov. Rick Perry in May 2003, requires public school students to observe a minute of silence and recite pledges of allegiance to the United States and Texas. Read a May 29, 2003, Houston Chronicle story.
• Monty Gaither is the Arizona director of American Atheists and a former Southern Baptist. He supports returning the pledge to its original form. Contact Mgaither@atheists.org.
• Cheryl Jennings is division director of elementary teaching and learning for the Irving Independent School District in Irving, Texas, where, starting in the fall, kindergartners will receive a grade on their report cards on their ability to say the pledge, among 41 other criteria. Contact 972-215-5030, CJennings@irvingisd.net.
• Before his recall, Gov. Gray Davis wanted the U.S. Supreme Court to review the federal appeals court decision banning the recitation of the pledge in public schools, according to a June 20 Associated Press story posted by The Mercury News. Davis said in a 10-page filing that the nine justices should take the case because it “presents an issue of national cultural and social importance.”
• The Northern California schoolgirl whose father sparked a major court battle against the Pledge of Allegiance has been saying it even though she could opt out of the daily ritual, according to a May article by The San Diego Union Tribune posted by FreeRepublic.com.
• The United States Justice Foundation, based in Escondido, has been filing briefs in opposition to the 9th Circuit’s Pledge of Allegiance ruling. Contact Gary Kreep, executive director, at 760-741-8086, usjf@usjf.net.
• Erwin Chemerinsky is Sydney M. Irmas Professor of Public Interest Law, Legal Ethics and Political Science at the University of Southern California. He supports removing “Under God” from the pledge. Contact 213-740-2539, echemeri@law.usc.edu.
• Nevada Attorney General Brian Sandoval joined attorneys general in other states in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the federal court ruling that outlawed the recitation of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, according to a June 12 Las Vegas Review-Journal article.
• A statewide campaign by Elko County, Nev., to keep the words “under God” in the pledge has been joined by Douglas and Churchill counties, according to an Associated Press article posted May 7 by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
• Constitutional law scholar Stephen M. Feldman is Jerry W. Housel/Carl F. Arnold Distinguished Professor of Law and adjunct professor of political science at the University of Wyoming in Laramie. He is the editor of Law & Religion: A Critical Anthology (New York University Press, 2000) and author of Please Don’t Wish Me a Merry Christmas: A Critical History of the Separation of Church and State (New York University Press, cloth 1997, paper 1998). Contact 307-766-4250, sfeldman@uwyo.edu.
• Congressman Jim McDermott, Democrat from the state of Washington, failed to say the words “Under God” as he led the House in the pledge on April 27, 2004. Mike DeCesare, spokesman for McDermott, said the congressman “hesitated, unsure of what he should do because the words ‘Under God’ are under court review.” Contact 206-553-7170 in Seattle; 202-225-3106 in Washington D.C.
• Barbara Dority is president of the Humanists of Washington, an organization that came to the support of a Washington high school student banned from his television production class after deleting the phrase “Under God” from a recitation of the pledge in a school broadcast. Contact 206-527-8518.
• Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment expert at the University of California at Los Angeles, thinks the court will uphold the pledge on the grounds that “Under God” is generic statement. He believes this could be controversial among pledge supporters because it represents a watered-down version of God. Contact 310-206-3926, volokh@law.ucla.edu.
Leave a Response
Entries(RSS)