Divided appeals court rules Pledge of Allegiance doesn't violate Constitution

A divided federal appeals court Thursday reversed itself, ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t violate the constitutional prohibition against state-mandated religious exercise even though it contains the phrase “one nation under God.”

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 2002, which deemed that requiring students to recite the pledge violated their rights to be free of religious indoctrination by the government, was one of the most controversial to come out of the court that is second only to the U.S. Supreme Court in its power to determine law for nine Western states and two Pacific territories.

The appeals court’s earlier decision had been reviewed by the Supreme Court in 2004, but the justices dodged the constitutional question on procedural grounds, throwing out the lawsuit brought by a Sacramento atheist and leaving intact the wording of the patriotic declaration.

Also decided Thursday was a challenge brought by the same plaintiff, Michael Newdow, to the phrase “In God We Trust” printed on the national money. The same three-judge panel ruled that an earlier case had found the phrase to be a national motto and that its placement on U.S. coins and currency wasn’t required by any government statute.

The Establishment Clause of the Constitution’s 1st Amendment prohibits the enactment of a law or official policy that establishes a religion or religious faith. The 9th Circuit’s earlier ruling that the pledge unconstitutionally included “under God” stirred nationwide controversy and exposed Newdow, a physician and lawyer, to virulent scorn for attacking the religious references.

In Thursday’s ruling, written by Judge Carlos T. Bea, an appointee of President George W. Bush, the judges ruled 2-1 that Newdow and others who joined his lawsuit didn’t have standing to challenge the 1954 amendment to the pledge adding the words “under God” because no federal statute requires them to recite it.

Senior Circuit Judge Dorothy W. Nelson joined Bea in the ruling, but Judge Stephen Reinhardt dissented, writing that “the state-directed, teacher-led daily recitation in public schools of the amended ‘under God’ version of the Pledge of Allegiance... violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.”

Nelson and Reinhardt were both appointed to the court by President Carter.

-- Carol J. Williams

Photo: L.A. Times file

More breaking news in L.A. Now:

State inspectors force UC Irvine Medical Center to improve 'medication management'

Couple plead no contest in hit-and-run that killed USC student, injured another

Girlicious singer, acquaintance charged with drug possession in Glendale

3 teachers in Black History Month incident to be reassigned, Cortines says

State corrections officials defend new law, say violent criminals will get heavier monitoring

Linking L.A.: UCLA Undie Run could return to Westwood campus

Woman pulled from water after SUV plunges into L.A. River

SUV plunges into L.A. River

Armed men rob UCLA students studying at apartment

Home invasion robbers break into Garden Grove residence

County supervisors spend funds on chauffeurs, parties and websites. Check out the database.

USC Provost C.L. Max Nikias to succeed Steven Sample as president

Comments

[Carrot Cake Man]

It just doesn't surprise me that Bush's appointee doesn't care that those who do not share his 'beliefs' have a right to be free from them.

[Joefriday]

It's about time that we stop bowing to the politically correct, as well as the minions who are hell bent on destroying America! I believe that if someone dose not want to be patriotic and recite our pledge, you don't have to. But DO NOT TRED ON MY RIGHT TO BE A PROUD AMERICAN! I'm so tired of Americans having to conform to a warped view that is forced upon us by a few self serving wackos who try to destroy American tradition. The same goes for "NEW" Americans who come to our country and force their customs on us and then complain about our customs. Live and let live! Don't destroy American tradition. America is in serious trouble from the liberals and political correctness!

[David Sackman]

The Pledge of Allegience was originally written by a Christian Socialist (Francis Bellamy) in the Nineteenth Century, WITHOUT the words "under God." These words were added in the Cold War to distinguish us from the "God-less Communists."
As a person of faith, who believes in God, I am opposed to these words in the Pledge. They are contrary to the original intent of the Pledge, and instead promote the idea that "God is on Our Side." This is precisely the type of thinking which drove the 9-11 terrorists, and which drives violence all over the globe, in the name of "God."
It is arrogant and divisive to insist that God is always on our side, and instead distances us from God. But by pledging ourselves to uphold "liberty and justice for all" we put ourselves on the side of God. That should be enough.

[August]

I Never say that pledge, and I certainly have no allegiance to the terrorist country it refers to!

[Audrey]

JoeFriday is more like JoeJurassic. What defines "American tradition?" Is slavery an American tradition? or women not having the right to vote? The U.S. has naturally evolved, as it should. But I'm assuming you don't believe in evolution either.

[real_california]

joefriday, it doesn't make any logical sense that someone who is running the country also wants to "destroy" it. what's the motivation for "destroying" something you preside over? come up with a better argument rather than the usual righ-wing neo-con/libertarian commentary.

[Francisco Barragan]

Although, personally I enjoy the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety, and strongly encourage it at every civic or patriotic, and I have no problem reciting it because of my Personal Christian faith, I understand (as have other dissenting judges and courts) how the words "Under God" can be considered a violation of the First Amendment.

It can be considered a violation, on TWO counts, because the recitation, although not forced to be recited, ONE) establishes and enacts an OFFICIAL policy of a religion, and TWO) based on ONE God, in violation of the First Amendment.

Furthermore, this Official policy of establishing a religion, may be deemed to be as imposing a PRIVATE religious view through PUBLIC means on others.
This would be imposing to someone else who may believe in MULTIPLE Gods (vs One God); and to someone who may believe in NO God.

Additionally, as citizens,even faith/religious believing citizens, we should be concerned when the government policy favors one religion over another (even if it may currently be beneficial to Me, or us personally), because we set a dangerous precedent of having the government favor a different religion at a later date, and imposing it on us.

Also, for believing people, I don't think that God needs the government to advance His Plans, and to require so, then would imply a weakness of "our" God.

And my faith tells me that my faith is a personal, private matter which we can all rightfully publicize, but which does not require the government or public means to do so.

Francisco Barragan (only my personal opinion and not that of any group).

[Objective]

In response to Joefriday's comment: "I'm so tired of Americans having to conform to a warped view that is forced upon us by a few self serving wackos who try to destroy American tradition."

You are absolutely correct. Except, the "warped view" being "forced upon us" here is the so-called notion that we are a nation founded "under God" or that "in God we Trust." I am part of this nation, and I do not subscribe to your "warped views" that are being forced upon me.

What binds us together as a nation is not "tradition," but a set of principals and core values, which are continually evolving, as contemplated by our Founding Fathers, and which incidentally include the doctrine of separation of church and state.

[LA_Smiley_Brown_Face_in_a_Suit]

If you religious freaks are so against the word "God" in the pledge, don't recite it. Nobody puts a gun in your head and forces you to say it. Get out of country! And don't take the American dollars with you because they have the phrase, "In God We Trust" in them.

[happyHBmom]

Joefriday, are you not treading on my right to be a proud atheist?

I am not a "new" American, by the way. And "live and let live" goes both ways.

[Tim]

Joefriday: First, exactly how is it that yours is not the warped view trying to be thrust on the rest of us? You would force us to say "in God we trust?" That's not forcing speech and being politically correct? And as far as "tradition" goes, how far back do you allow for that? Because the phrase, "in God we trust" did not exist in the pledge until the McCarthyism of the 1950s. I for one would prefer the tradition that dates back to before that.

[hell bent]

I am a proud American. This is my home, this is where I was born and raised, this is where I plan on dying someday. But I also know that it isn't a perfect country, and we need to constantly change to improve it and keep up to date. Being one of the people that "Under God" and "In God We Trust" offends, I think that the ruse that these phrases are patriotic and not religious is just plain wrong. Ask any child what the phrases mean and they would say it refers to the God that is talked about in church. Your God is not mine, and I do not trust a deity for anything. The endorsement by our government of these phrases supports religion, and Judeo-Christian at that, over non-religion. That's unconstitutional, and I hope (but have little faith) that the Supreme Court will see that.

[jad]

I believe you mean "tread," not "tred." And I'm much moved by your anti-immigrant rant masquerading as tolerance "live and let live."

[Just say it]

I'm not even terribly conservative, but the words "under God" are part of our nation's history, and our history has never been a religious one (hello, separation of church and state!). If you don't want to say "under God," don't say "under God." But don't try to rewrite history.

[Blaine]

have more carrot cake buddy, Bush didn't do it.

[Mark]

Loonies will scream about "political correctness", even though they clearly won this battle. If it were up to them, we would have "In God We Trust" emblazoned on every government building and public park.

As an atheist, I'm not happy about these decisions, but I take comfort in the fact that nonbelievers are increasing in number, and aren't as intimidated by the religious right as we used to be.

[EOW 62405]

So what does that say about the Carter appointee Carrot Cake Man?

[BAW]

Carrot Cake -

Please don't fall into the "freedom of religion" is "freedom from religion" trap. The former is constitutional law; the latter is not, except insofar as you are free to ignore religion by, for example, not reciting the Pledge.

To assert otherwise is ignorant.

[Hugh]

I'm with Joe Friday. "Don't tread on my right to be a proud American." When I say the pledge I choose to invoke God in this passage. Since this is a pledge to our great nation, a nation of disparate origins and faiths, I feel each individual should be proud to invoke their own deity at this moment of the pledge in a loud and raucous celebration of our diversity. Only Atheists should willingly choose silence. Being a proud American will never be about cow tailing to another's faith, whatever the history of the beginning of our Union may be. Being a proud American is about each standing tall within their own faith, yet all together standing taller still under one flag.

[Paul Whittaker]

I am an atheist and I believe in evolution through natural selection and in the common ancestry of all living things. I do not believe in "god", "yahweh" or "allah". The phrase "under God" is insulting and disrespectful of my beliefs (it was also inserted in 1954, I think; Lincoln's original words were "one nation, indivisible"). It would do no harm to eliminate it and embrace the more affirmative aspects of our national heritage.

[Dana]

To the person who posted the first comment, I think you are lost!

I am glad that the court did not give in to one person who doesn't want to say the word God. If you don't want to say it you have the right not to! Stop wasting our money on these stupid lawsuits!

[Reverend David]

So what, is the US a Theocracy now?

As an ordained minister this is clearly decision that undermines the founding values of this country.

[Precolumbus Disagreement]

“The same goes for "NEW" Americans who come to our country and force their customs on us and then complain about our customs.”

...why this is as American as America does, since 1492.

I believe that if someone “dose” not want to be politically correct and recite our political correctness, you don't have to. (dangling preposition?)
That is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I shall not put.

[Jesse F.]

@JoeFriday

Your "argument" doesn't even make sense. You contradict your own point. How can we "live and let live" if a school FORCES a child to recite the pledge of allegiance and the words "one nation under god"? The very definition of "live and let live" is to not force your views upon someone else. Mandating that someone recite a pointless pledge is the exact opposite of "let live".

No one is stopping you from showing your pride. That's the point. You can recite the pledge as much as you like, just don't force my kid to do it. That's all us "wackos" are asking for. You come off as someone who is just angry at the world.

BTW, the words "under god" were ADDED into the pledge in the 50's, during the McCarthy era. It's hardly the traditional version. So, why aren't you complaining about the desecration of that tradition? Logic my friend, you should try it.

[Paul A'Barge]

"Judge Stephen Reinhardt "

Reinhardt is a totalitarian idiot.