WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decidewhether the Pledge of Allegiance recited by generations of Americanschoolchildren is an unconstitutional blending of church and state.
The case sets up an emotional showdown over God in the publicschools and in public life. It will settle whether the phrase "onenation under God" will remain a part of the patriotic oath as it isrecited in most classrooms.
The court will hear the case sometime next year.
The justices agreed to hear an appeal involving a Californiaatheist whose 9-year-old daughter, like most elementary schoolchildren, hears the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily.
A national uproar followed a federal appeals court ruling lastyear that the reference to God made the pledge unconstitutional inpublic schools. That ruling, if allowed to stand, would strip thereference from the version of the pledge recited by about 9.6 millionschoolchildren in western states.
The First Amendment guarantees that government will not"establish" religion, wording that has come to mean a general ban onovert government sponsorship of religion in public schools andelsewhere.
The Supreme Court has already said that schoolchildren cannot berequired to recite the oath that begins, "I pledge allegiance to theflag of the United States of America."
The court has also repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer fromclassrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the First Amendment andthe Supreme Court's precedents make clear that tax-supported schoolscannot lend their imprimatur to a declaration of fealty to "onenation under God."
The Supreme Court also took these actions Tuesday:
* Turned down the Bush administration's request to considerwhether the federal government can punish doctors for recommending orperhaps just talking about the benefits of marijuana to sickpatients. An appeals court said the government cannot.
* Agreed to hear another in a series of cases that pit free speechconcerns against attempts to protect children from Internet smut. Thecourt said it will decide if Congress can require adults-onlyfiltering or other technological fixes to ensure children don't seeharmful material but adults get access if they want it.
* Said it will decide whether border officers can randomly searchgas tanks of vehicles coming into the country as part of securitymeasures that the Bush administration said are indispensable to thewar on drugs and terrorism.
* Agreed to consider whether adult businesses that are denied citylicenses must be allowed to continue operating while they appeal.Justices will use an appeal from Littleton, Colo., to clarify howcities can regulate adult businesses without violating theConstitution.
* Rejected an appeal involving hip-hop music, from BridgeportMusic Inc. and other Michigan recording companies, that claimed theywere not reimbursed for the use of copyrighted rap. Lower courts saidthe lawsuit, against Texas company Still N the Water Publishing, wasfiled in the wrong court.
* Turned down Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt's appeal in agambling dispute. Flynt had argued that California wrongly gaveIndian tribes special permission to offer types of gambling that non-Indian businesses such as his Hustler Casino cannot.
The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United forSeparation of Church and State, called the pledge case the mostcontroversial issue before the high court in a decade.
"Everyone's got an opinion, informed or otherwise," Lynn said."The bottom line is, will we require a daily religious loyalty oathfor school children?"
The administration, the girl's school and atheist Michael Newdowall asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the case.
The court, however, agreed only to hear the appeal from the schooldistrict. The administration will be able to weigh in separately. Thecourt also said it will consider whether Newdow had the proper legalfooting to bring the case.
Justice Antonin Scalia will not take part in the case, apparentlybecause of public remarks earlier this year critical of the lowercourt ruling in the pledge case. His absence sets up the possibilitythat the other eight justices could deadlock 4-4, a result that wouldallow the lower court decision to stand.
In its legal filings so far, the administration has argued thatthe reference to God in the pledge is more about ceremony and historythan about religion.
The reference is an "official acknowledgment of our nation'sreligious heritage," similar to the "In God We Trust" stamped oncoins and bills, Solicitor general Theodore Olson told the court. Itis far-fetched to say such references pose a real danger of imposingstate-sponsored religion, Olson wrote.
The administration also claimed that Newdow cannot sue on behalfof his daughter because his custody of the girl is in question.Newdow and the child's mother, Sandra Banning, have waged a long andbitter custody battle over the child, who lives with her mother.Newdow told the court that he now has joint custody of the girl,whose name is not part of the legal papers filed with the SupremeCourt.
To complicate matters, Banning has told the court she has noobjection to the pledge.
Newdow holds medical and legal degrees, and is representinghimself in the case.
The phrase "under God" was not part of the original pledge adoptedby Congress as a patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of WorldWar II. Congress inserted the phrase more than a decade later, in1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold.
Supporters of the new wording said it would set the United Statesapart from godless communism.
The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624
In other cases Tuesday, the court:
-Turned aside an appeal of a lower court decision that upheld lawsin nine states permitting doctors to give marijuana to sick patients.
-Agreed to decide whether border officers can randomly search gastanks of vehicles coming into the country as part of stepped-upsecurity measures that the Bush administration said are indispensableto the war on drugs and terrorism.
-Said it will take a fresh look at the complex question of how toprotect children from online smut without resorting tounconstitutional censorship.
Copyright 2003 by Telegraph Herald, All Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment