PDA

View Full Version : Judge Blocks Colo. Pledge of Allegiance



thedrifter
08-17-03, 07:41 AM
Judge Blocks Colo. Pledge of Allegiance


By STEVEN K. PAULSON
Associated Press Writer

August 15, 2003, 8:53 PM EDT


DENVER -- A federal judge Friday blocked a Colorado law requiring public school students and teachers to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, calling the law discriminatory and divisive.

In issuing a temporary injunction, U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock said the law discriminates against teachers by allowing students to opt out with a note from their parents. Teachers cannot opt out.

The judge also said the law pits students who choose to say the pledge against those who do not, and students against teachers.

"What is instructional about that?" Babcock asked. "You can't compel a citizen of the United States to recite the Pledge of Allegiance."

Babcock said failing to recite the pledge conceivably could lead to suspensions for students and firings for teachers, although supporters of the law said there were no penalties.

The injunction will be in effect until a yet-to-be-scheduled hearing on the challenge. Until then the pledge can still be recited, but people can't be required to say it.

State Senate President John Andrews called the ruling "a gross insult to the patriotism of most Coloradans."

"It's bad jurisprudence. I'm confident it will be overturned on appeal," Andrews said.

Gov. Bill Owens criticized the action as "dramatically out of step with the desires and practices of most Coloradans who value and respect the Pledge of Allegiance."

The pledge has been part of the morning routine in many Colorado schools but it was not required until the law took effect Aug. 6. It was challenged less than a week later by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of nine teachers and students from four Denver-area districts.

ACLU attorney Allen Chen told the judge the law posed irreparable harm to the First Amendment rights of students and teachers.

"This is nothing less than ritualistic recitation of words that have much meaning to some people and no meaning to other people," he said.

State officials say anyone can choose not to say the pledge under certain circumstances.

Colorado is one of 33 states that require schools to include recitation of the pledge during the school day, according to the Education Commission of the States. Specific rules vary.

Last month, a federal court ruled a Pennsylvania law requiring all students to recite the pledge or sing the national anthem violated students' freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court is expected to announce this fall whether it will consider another federal court ruling in San Francisco that said regular classroom recitations of the pledge are unconstitutional because of the phrase "one nation, under God."

* __

On the Net:

ACLU: http://www.aclu.org
Copyright © 2003, The Associated Press


http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-pledge-lawsuit,0,7055424.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines


Sempers,

Roger
:marine:

firstsgtmike
08-17-03, 09:57 AM
The ACLU said:

"This is nothing less than ritualistic recitation of words that have much meaning to some people and no meaning to other people," he said.

Since he believes that, why is he making an issue of it?

When I went to school, we had to learn the Preamble to the Constitution and the Gettysburg Address.

Perhaps they should make the Pledge of Allegience an essay question on history examinations. (and see how many teachers could pass.)

Barrio_rat
08-17-03, 11:58 AM
After reading this article I started thinking about what it is the ACLU believes and, therefore, fights for. In this article they state that these children have the right to freedom of speech. If that is so, why isn’t the ACLU fighting for other rights of children? Such as freedom of religion - why isn’t the ACLU out finding kids that don’t want to go to church with their parents and fighting for their rights to attend the church of their choice? And again, freedom of the press - while this is primarily for the media to have freedom to print, is it not also a freedom of the citizenry to choose that which they read and/or view? So, the ACLU should be out fighting for the rights of young boys and girls to watch adult movies and read Playboy or Playgirl magazines. Then too, shouldn’t the ACLU fight for the rights of these children to keep and bear arms?

I thought that the rights in the Bill of Rights pertained to adult citizens of the United States. Of course children have rights - human rights. But those rights which are guaranteed in the Constitution are for those who are of legal age. At least, that is my understanding.

I’m sure there is the argument that speech falls under a different category. To me, it does not. When growing up, I did not have the freedom of speech - my father proved it when he washed my mouth out with soap. Once one of these rights has been shown to cover persons who are not of legal age, an argument can and, sooner or later, will be made that all of the rights in the Constitution, primarily the Bill of Rights, pertains to them. Can you imagine a child gaining the help of the ACLU to sue his parents because they “illegally” searched his room and, in doing so, found and confiscated marijuana or a firearm? Or requiring due process before being grounded?

I know the ACLU has done some good but, overall, I think their track record shows more of a hindrance on the American people than a help.

As to the Pledge of Allegience. If you don't like it Canada isn't too far away and neither is Mexico. Hell, I'm sure a few patriots would even chip in to help them buy a one way ticket to France.

JChristin
08-17-03, 12:07 PM
QUOTE FROM BARRIO_RAT:
"Or requiring due process before being grounded?"


As a child I was always given "due process" prior to being grounded.

It consisted of a stern lecture followed by the lilac switch.


semper fi,
jchristin