|
vsp, my opinion is that the legal reasoning of the 9th Circuit is correct. Many constitutional lawyers would agree ... many would disagree. That's why we have a complete judicial system.
My comments were not in support of a constiutional amendment to abridge the separation of church and state.
Rather than see the courts take a political stand to allow the words "under God" to stand in the Pledge of Allegiance as used by government institutions, including public schools, I'd like the legislators to take responsibility for such lawmaking.
If they did, they'd have to face public opinion, including yours and mine, which are likely in the minortity on this issue right now.
An amendment could entrench the Pledge of Allegiance in whatever words are politically acceptable, without infringing the Constitution. I wouldn't want to see "under God" in there, but I'm out of step with the American public as represented by their legislators. (I'm not even an American, so this is an academic or legal debate for me.)
I think that legislators might have to think harder on the subject than just strutting out on the steps and placing their hands on their hearts and reciting. They'd have to deal squarely and fairly with the issues, rather than hoping some judges will save them from their responsibility by ruling that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance don't mean what they mean.
If the people overwhelmingly want such expressions, there is a mechanism for Constitutional amendment ... and it's not the Supreme Court.
My argument and closing barbs in the post above, were just to draw out the discussion of the issue whether "under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance, not whether it is legitimate that it "is" already ... for only 48 years, at that.
|