ACLJ: Federal Court Decision Declaring Pledge Unconstitutional ''Flawed'' - Underscores Importance of Who Serves on Supreme Court.WASHINGTON -- The American Center The American Center is a high-rise tower in Southfield, Michigan. It was built in 1975 and stands at 26 floors, with one basement floor, for a total of 27. The building's main use is that of a typical office tower. It also includes a parking garage and retail spaces. for Law and Justice (ACLJ ACLJ American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ Appleseed Center for Law and Justice (Washington, DC) ), specializing in constitutional law, today called a federal district court decision in California declaring the Pledge of Allegiance Pledge of Allegiance, in full, Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, oath that proclaims loyalty to the United States. and its national symbol. unconstitutional a flawed decision that underscores the importance of who serves on the Supreme Court of the United States Supreme Court of the United States Final court of appeal in the U.S. judicial system and final interpreter of the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court was created by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 as the head of a federal court system, though it was . In 2004, the high court dismissed a suit brought by California atheist ATHEIST. One who denies the existence of God. 2. As atheists have not any religion that can bind their consciences to speak the truth, they are excluded from being witnesses. Bull. N. P. 292; 1 Atk. 40; Gilb. Ev. 129; 1 Phil. Ev. 19. See also, Co. Litt. 6 b. Michael Newdow Michael Arthur Newdow (born June 24 1953 in New York City) is a Sacramento, California attorney and emergency medicine physician. He is best known for his efforts to bar public schools in the United States from reciting the current version of the Pledge of Allegiance because of its , who is currently challenging the Pledge in the California case where a decision was issued today. "This decision is legally flawed and we're hopeful that the decision ultimately will be overturned," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, which supports the Pledge and filed in the Supreme Court case. "This is another example of a federal district court exhibiting hostility toward a time-honored tradition which has been defended by numerous Justices including Justice O'Connor who said eliminating such references 'would sever TO SEVER, practice. When defendants who are sued jointly have separate defences, they may in general sever, that is, each one rely on his own separate defence; each may plead severally and insist on his own separate plea. See Severance. ties to a history that sustains this nation even today.' This decision underscores the importance of the federal judiciary and who serves on the Supreme Court of the United States. The Pledge clearly acknowledges the fact that our freedoms in this country come from God, not government and we're hopeful this flawed decision will ultimately be rejected." In dismissing the suit in 2004, the high court rejected a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declaring the phrase "under God" in the Pledge unconstitutional. In addressing the constitutionality of the Pledge, Justice O'Connor concluded: "It is unsurprising that a Nation founded by religious refugees and dedicated to religious freedom should find references to divinity in its symbols, songs, mottoes, and oaths. Eradicating such references would sever ties to a history that sustains this Nation even today." Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice is based in Washington, D.C. and is online at www.aclj.org. |
|
||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion