[GCFL-discuss] I led the pigeons...

[gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net]

I haven't read the full text of this opinion yet, but I couldn't be
happier with the result that is summarized here:


CIVIL PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

    ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. v. NEWDOW, No. 02-1624 (U.S.S.C. June
    14, 2004)
    A father did not have standing to challenge the "under God" portion
    of the Pledge of Allegiance as violating the Establishment Clause on
    behalf of his daughter, because he lacked "next friend" status under
    California Law.

    To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
    http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/021624.html


The Supreme Court did not say that the words "under God" are appropriate
in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Supreme Court did not say that the words "under God" are
inappropriate in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Supreme Court did say "get this nonsense out of our face" by the only
legal process available: saying that the father had no standing to bring
his suit to court in the first place.

I continue to believe that it was a mistake for Congress to adopt ANY
"official" version of the Pledge in 1942, much less add words to it in
1954 -- but there is not much the courts can do about that.

I also believe that putting the words "under God" into a second-rate
piece of secular verse defiles the Holy Name of God.

But most of all, I believe that reciting a pledge to a flag is a
violation of the Second Commandment. That is between me and God, not
binding on anyone else, and also no business of the Supreme Court's.

The court did the right thing, the common sense thing, and acted with
appropriate humility.

				Siarlys


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!