DOCSLIB.ORG

4 Family CFP 3-12-10.Indd 1 3/12/10 12:44:10 PM

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
4 Family CFP 3-12-10.Indd 1 3/12/10 12:44:10 PM Page 4 Colby Free Press Friday, March 12, 2010 Family Babies Bulldogs Federal appeals court Bridget Grace Chaffin Bridget Grace Chaffin, daughter of Marc and Cyn- win bowl thia Chaffin of Goodland, was born Sunday, March By Karina Munoz 7, 2010, at Citizens Medical Center. She weighed 6 Golden Plains High School upholds ‘under God’ pounds, 12 ounces and measured 19.5 inches. Sister Olivia welcomed the baby home. By Terence Chea the legal standing to file the suit ing people equally on the basis of On Thursday, March 4, the Grandparents are Tom and Charlene Chapin of Golden Plains physics class went Associated Press Writer because he didn’t have custody of their lawful religious views.” Bridget C. Denver and Paul and Linda Chaffin of Goodland. his daughter, on whose behalf he Rory Little, a professor at the to Fort Hays State University for SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — An brought the case. University of California Hastings the eighth annual Science Bowl appeals court has upheld referenc- So Newdow filed an identical College of the Law, said the Su- Taylor Madison Blake sponsored by the Society of Phys- ics Students, and came home with es to God on U.S. currency and in challenge on behalf of other par- preme Court is unlikely to review Bradley and Lindsay (Haynes) Blake of Augusta, the Pledge of Allegiance, rejecting ents who objected to the recitation the case because Thursday’s rul- the hardware, winning the event. Ga., are the parents of a daughter, Taylor Madison The format is similar to Scholars arguments they violate the consti- of the pledge at school. In 2005, ing is the third appellate court de- Blake, born at 10:30 p.m. Sunday, March 7, 2010, at tutional separation of church and a federal judge in Sacramento de- cision upholding the pledge. Bowl, but with the questions from Doctors Hospital in Augusta. She weighed 6 pounds, biology, earth science, chemistry, state. cided in Newdow’s favor, prompt- In addition, Congress passed 2 ounces and was 18 3/4 inches long. “The Pledge of Allegiance ing the appeals court to take the a law reaffirming the pledge in physics and mathematics. Grandparents are Steve and Cynthia Haynes, Participating schools included serves to unite our vast nation case again. 2002, following the 9th Circuit’s Oberlin, and Jerry and Roberta Blake, Naperville, through the proud recitation of Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who ruling that struck it down. Hays, four teams; Otis-Bison, Ill. Emma Desilet, Concordia, is her maternal great- two teams; Logan, two teams; and some of the ideals upon which our was part of the three-judge panel “I think this is the last word on grandmother. Taylor Blake Republic was founded,” Judge that ruled in Newdow’s favor this particular lawsuit,” Little said. Hoisington, Smith Center, Stock- Carlos Bea wrote for the major- eight years ago, wrote a 123-page “It’s an important ruling.” Abilene Hustlers 4-H Club ton and Golden Plains. ity in a 2-1 ruling Thursday by 9th dissent to the 60-page majority Greg Katsas, who argued the The Golden Plains team of U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. opinion. currency case on behalf of the U.S. Michael Roehl, Shaun Gilbert, Abilene Hustlers Vice President on sale soon, and asked the club if Jonathan Broeckelman and Isaac Bea noted that schools do not re- “Under no sound legal analy- government when the appellate Brennan Ziegelmeier presided they wanted to buy or donate. The quire students to recite the pledge, sis adhering to binding Supreme court heard it in December 2007, Broeckelman, won their pool with over the March 1 club meeting club voted to buy three bunches. a record of 4-1. which was amended to include Court precedent could this court said he thought the panel made the in the absence of president Sarah County Club Day will begin at the words “under God” by a 1954 uphold state-directed, teacher- right decision Thursday. The Hays A team won the other Lamm. Hannah Strange led the 5 p.m. Friday, March 26, at Sa- pool. In the semifinals, Golden federal law signed by President led, daily recitation of the ‘under “I think these two phrases en- club in the flag salute. cred Heart Catholic School. The Eisenhower. Members of Con- God’ version of the Pledge of capsulate the philosophy on which Plains defeated Smith Center in After Jory Koon read the min- club voted to do a model meeting overtime 40-30 and Hays A de- gress at the time said they wanted Allegiance by children in public the nation was founded,” said utes and they were approved, 11 for club day, and to compete for a to set the United States apart from schools,” wrote Reinhardt, who Katsas, who now works in private feated Logan B 50-20. In the fi- members answered roll call by pizza party with other clubs in get- nals, Golden Plains defeated Hays “godless communists.” was appointed by President Jim- practice. “There is a religious as- naming their favorite fruit. ting spring blood drive donors. In a separate 3-0 ruling, the my Carter in 1980. pect to saying “One nation under A in overtime 50-40 to take the The council announced that the Josh Koon led the club in play- championship. court upheld the inscription of the Newdow, a doctor and attorney God,” but it isn’t like a prayer. “Welcome to Thomas County” ing Four Corners. national motto “In God We Trust” who founded a group called the When someone says the pledge, “It felt fantastic to beat a 5A sign still needs to be put up and A guest was Kenton Krehbiel, school,” Isaac Broeckelman said. on U.S. coins and currency, citing First Atheist Church of True Sci- they’re not praying to God, they’re the shooting sports, archery and who judged the meeting. He said an earlier 9th Circuit panel that ence, told the Associated Press pledging allegiance to the country, shotgun projects still need leaders. the club did well, and gave tips on ruled the phrase is ceremonial and he would ask the appeals court to the flag and the ideals of the coun- Leaders need to commit to two how to make amendments to mo- Celebrate 90th patriotic and “has nothing whats- rehear the case. If it rejects that re- try.” years to pay for the training. tions. over to do with the establishment quest, Newdow said, he’ll appeal Small animal weigh-in will be Before ending the meeting, the The family of Oscar Jones will of religion.” to the U.S. Supreme Court. Corrections from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Thurs- club broke up into two groups to hold an open house for his 90th The same court caused a na- “The whole argument that ‘under day, May 6, at the Thomas County practice their project talks and birthday from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. tional uproar and prompted accu- God’ wasn’t placed into the pledge The Colby Free Press wants to Fairgrounds for sheep, goats, pigs demonstrations for Club Day. Saturday, March 20, at the Senior sations of judicial activism when for religious purposes is bogus,” maintain an accurate record of and bucket calves. Next meeting will be at 7 p.m. Progress Center in Fike Park. The it decided in Sacramento athiest Newdow said. “I hope people rec- our town. Please report any error Community leader Donna Monday, April 5. family requests no gifts. Michael Newdow’s favor in 2002, ognize this is not against God or or lack of clarity in a news story Lamm announced that American — Brook Ziegelmeier Cards will reach him at 635 S. ruling that the Pledge of Alle- people who believe in God. It’s to us at 462-3963. Cancer Society daffodils will be Grant Ave. in Colby. giance violated the First Amend- about the government not treat- ment prohibition against govern- ment endorsement of religion. President George W. Bush Markets called the 2002 decision “ridicu- Quotes as of close of lous,” senators passed a resolu- previous business day tion condemning it and Newdow Hi-Plains Co-op received death threats. Wheat (bushel) $3.85 That lawsuit reached the U.S. Corn (bushel) $3.08 Supreme Court in 2004, but the Milo (hundredweight) $5.07 high court said Newdow lacked Soybeans (bushel) $8.13 Worship in the church of your choice this weekend. Services We Offer: Weekly Trimming & Mowing Power Raking Commercial & Residential Aerating Call 785-460-CAMO (2266) Edging for a quote today!! Tree/ Hedge Trimming Owners C.W. Cheney Roto Tilling Jason Mader General Yard Clean Up 855 Davis Ave Colby, KS 67701 BREWSTER UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, PO Box 250, Brewster. Pastor Dorine Chambers, 785-462-6044, Sunday School: 9:45 a.m.; Worship Service, 10:45 a.m. Schedule of church services GATEWAY FELLOWSHIP, 2nd and Sunrise, Oakley. MINGO BIBLE CHURCH, 420 Main Mingo, 785-462- FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH, (Disciples of Christ), Pastor James Bloom, Sunday Morning Worship and 2992: An independent community church served by Vil- Pastor Lyle Knebel, 385 W. 3rd - 785-460-2718, Sunday Children’s Church 10:15 a.m., Wednesday evening lage Missions Intern Pastor Tom Peyton. Sunday School: Morning Worship and Children’s Church at 10:00 a.m. Bible Study and Intercessory Prayer 6:30 p.m. 785- 9:30AM - all ages. Sunday Services: 10:45AM. Sunday OUR SAVIORS LUTHERAN CHURCH, 671-4020. Nights: 1st Sunday of the month: potluck following morn- Brewster, ing service - no evening service; 2nd Sunday: services at Sunday worship 9:00 a.m.; 2nd Sunday of the month • Mittens is your full line fuel and lubricant distributor in COLBY INDEPENDENT BAPTIST CHURCH, 730 E.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In God We Trust
    IN THIS ISSUE • Money’s Motto “In God We Trust” is Constitutional • Court Voids Law on Animal Cruelty • Spousal Support Contract Enforceable Against Husband • Defective Sperm Could Not Be May 2010 Basis for Suit Money’s Motto “In God We Trust” is Constitutional SUMMARY: The statutes requiring that “In God We Trust” be Looking only at the motto Newdow opposes, and printed on U.S. paper money and stamped into U.S. coins do the wording of the Establishment Clause, his argument looks not violate the First Amendment because that motto is strong. Yet in 1970, the Ninth Circuit decided a case called ceremonial or patriotic and not an affirmative effort by the Aronow v. United States making the same essential argument government to advocate religious belief. The United States Newdow made here—that “In God We Trust” violates the First Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided Newdow v. Amendment’s Establishment Clause. In that case, the Ninth LeFevre on March 11, 2010. Circuit disagreed. Rather than a sincere statement or command of unified religious belief, the motto, ruled the court, was a BACKGROUND: Michael Newdow is an ordained minister in more generalized and symbolic slogan with a ceremonial or and founder of the First Amendmist Church of True Science, a patriotic purpose. Its function was rooted in tradition rather religion whose members believe that there is no god. Newdow than religion and the motto’s appearance on money did not has brought various lawsuits intended to end government impede people’s ability to believe or disbelieve according to practices that he and his church argue advance belief in a their own ideas and feelings.
    [Show full text]
  • Newdow Calls for a New Day in Establishment Clause Jurisprudence: Justice Thomas's "Actual Legal Coercion" Standard Provides the Necessary Renovation James A
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals July 2015 Newdow Calls for a New Day in Establishment Clause Jurisprudence: Justice Thomas's "Actual Legal Coercion" Standard Provides the Necessary Renovation James A. Campbell Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the First Amendment Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Campbell, James A. (2006) "Newdow Calls for a New Day in Establishment Clause Jurisprudence: Justice Thomas's "Actual Legal Coercion" Standard Provides the Necessary Renovation," Akron Law Review: Vol. 39 : Iss. 2 , Article 6. Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol39/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Campbell: Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow CAMPBELL1.DOC 4/14/2006 1:14:41 PM NEWDOW CALLS FOR A NEW DAY IN ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE JURISPRUDENCE: JUSTICE THOMAS’S “ACTUAL LEGAL COERCION” STANDARD PROVIDES THE NECESSARY RENOVATION I. INTRODUCTION Most Supreme Court cases fly under the radar of the national media. Occasionally, however, the media finds a case worthy of being thrust into the spotlight.1 In 2004, the Supreme Court faced such a case in Elk Grove Unified School District v.
    [Show full text]
  • Newdow V. Congress February 2013 Original Complaint Page Iii CLAIM 6
    Michael Newdow Pro hac vice (pending) USDC-SDNY Bar PO Box 233345 Sacramento, CA 95823 (916) 273-3798 [email protected] Edwin M. Reiskind, Jr. Friend & Reiskind PLLC 100 William Street, #1220 New York, NY 10038 (212) 587-1960 (212) 587-1957 (Fax) [email protected] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Civil Action No. ORIGINAL COMPLAINT ROSALYN NEWDOW; KENNETH BRONSTEIN; BENJAMIN DREIDEL; NEIL GRAHAM; JULIE WOODWARD; JAN AND PAT DOE; DOE-CHILD1 AND DOE-CHILD2; ALEX AND DREW ROE; ROE-CHILD1, ROE-CHILD2, AND ROE-CHILD3; VAL AND JADE COE; COE-CHILD1 AND COE-CHILD2; NEW YORK CITY ATHEISTS; FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION; Plaintiffs, v. THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY; RICHARD A. PETERSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES MINT; LARRY R. FELIX, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING; Defendants. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Newdow v. The Congress of the United States Original Complaint TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ v JURISDICTION AND VENUE ................................................................................................... 1 PARTIES ........................................................................................................................................ 2 A. PLAINTIFFS ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • One Nation Under God? a Constitutional Question Elk Grove Unified School District V
    One Nation Under God? A Constitutional Question Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow On Wednesday, March 24, 2004, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (No. 02–1624). The case involves a challenge by Michael Newdow, an avowed atheist, to state-sponsored recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the public school system that his daughter attends. Mr. Newdow asserts that the inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge renders it a religious exercise and that government sponsorship of recitals of the Pledge by children in public schools thus violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled against Mr. Newdow, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed that judgment. In its initial opinion, issued on June 26, 2002, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held uncon- stitutional the 1954 Act of Congress that added the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. The court also held unconstitutional the practice of state-sponsored recitation of the Pledge in public schools. Sandra Banning, the mother of Mr. Newdow’s daugh- ter, then challenged his standing to bring the suit. Ms. Banning has no objection to the Pledge or to her daughter’s recitation of it in public school. On December 4, 2002, the Court of Appeals ruled that Mr. Newdow had standing to sue in his own name but not to sue on his daughter’s behalf. On February 28, 2003, the panel amended its opinion and withdrew its earlier ruling that the 1954 Act of Congress violates the Establishment Clause.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
    Michael Newdow, in pro per and as counsel CA SBN: 220444 PO Box 233345 Sacramento, CA 95823 916-427-6669 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Civil Action No. 2:05-CV-00017-LKK-DAD THE REV. DR. MICHAEL A. NEWDOW, IN PRO PER; JAN DOE AND PAT DOE, PARENTS; DOECHILD, A MINOR CHILD; JAN ROE; PARENT; ROECHILD-1 AND ROECHILD-2, MINOR CHILDREN; Plaintiffs, v. THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; PETER LEFEVRE, LAW REVISION COUNSEL; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA; RICHARD J. RIORDAN, CALIFORNIA SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION, THE ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (“EGUSD”); DR. STEVEN LADD, SUPERINTENDENT, EGUSD; THE SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (“SCUSD”); DR. M. MAGDALENA CARRILLO MEJIA, SUPERINTENDENT, SCUSD; THE ELVERTA JOINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT (“EJESD”); DR. DIANNA MANGERICH, SUPERINTENDENT, EJESD; THE RIO LINDA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT (“RLUSD”); FRANK S. PORTER, SUPERINTENDENT, RLUSD; Defendants. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs allege as follows: TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF APPENDICES...............................................................................................................ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................iv JURISDICTION AND VENUE ...................................................................................................1 PARTIES........................................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:04-Cv-02208-JDB Document 20 Filed 01/14/05 Page 1 of 50
    Case 1:04-cv-02208-JDB Document 20 Filed 01/14/05 Page 1 of 50 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MICHAEL NEWDOW, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 04-2208 (JDB) GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This case draws this Court into the murky waters of the law relating to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Plaintiff Michael Newdow, a well-known atheist litigant, challenges the inclusion of prayers by invited clergy -- in the form of an invocation and benediction -- at the upcoming Presidential Inauguration scheduled to occur on January 20, 2005. He seeks a declaratory judgment and preliminary injunction to prohibit a practice that has existed for almost seventy years through invited clergy, and that arguably can be traced back to the Inauguration of President George Washington in 1789.1 Newdow's present challenge poses complex First Amendment questions relating to one of this nation's most significant public events. But in addition to such weighty Establishment Clause questions, the case raises substantial issue preclusion and standing questions that require this 1 This Memorandum Opinion will address only Newdow's motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court has considered, but will not rule on at this time, defendants' motions to dismiss. -1- Case 1:04-cv-02208-JDB Document 20 Filed 01/14/05 Page 2 of 50 Court to proceed cautiously, particularly given Newdow's prior litigation involving the very same subject matter and the present context of a request for expedited consideration of a motion seeking the extraordinary relief of enjoining the President.2 The Court is therefore mindful of the guidance expressed by the Supreme Court just last year in another case brought by Newdow challenging the inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance: The command to guard jealously and exercise rarely our power to make constitutional pronouncements requires strictest adherence when matters of great national significance are at stake.
    [Show full text]
  • Elk Grove Unified School District V. Newdow, No. 02-1624
    Nos. 02-1574 and 02-1624 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL A. NEWDOW, et al., _______________________________ Respondents. ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT and DAVID W. GORDON, Superintendent, EGUSD, Petitioners, v. MICHAEL A. NEWDOW, Respondent. _______________________________ ON PETITION FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF IN OPPOSITION FOR RESPONDENT MICHAEL A. NEWDOW MICHAEL NEWDOW, Pro Se Post Office Box 233345 Sacramento, CA 95823 (916) 392-7382 181538 A ((800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859 i QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Whether the inclusion of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. (2) Whether a parent who shares the joint physical custody, but has been deprived of the legal custody, of his child has Article III standing to challenge the daily inculcation of disputed religious dogma when that inculcation is perpetrated by his child’s public school teachers. ii TABLECited OF Authorities CONTENTS Page Questions Presented . i Table of Contents . ii Table of Cited Authorities . iii I. Is The Establishment Clause Violated? . 1 II. Standing For Non-custodial Parents . 8 Conclusion . 11 iii TABLE OFCited CITED Authorities AUTHORITIES Page Cases Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) . 2, 3 American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lundgren, 16 Cal. 4th 307, 940 P.2d 797, 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 210 (1997) . 9 Board of Education of Kiryas Joel v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994) . 7 Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd.
    [Show full text]
  • Case No. 09-2473 in the United States Court of Appeals
    Case: 09-2473 Document: 00116058015 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2010 Entry ID: 5443428 CASE NO. 09-2473 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HANOVER SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. Defendants-Appellees, On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire (District Court #1:07-cv-356) APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF MICHAEL NEWDOW ROSANNA FOX Counsel for Plaintiffs Counsel for Plaintiffs PO BOX 233345 12 ELDORADO CIRCLE SACRAMENTO, CA 95823 NASHUA, NH 03062 (916) 424-2356 (603) 318-8479 [email protected] [email protected] Case: 09-2473 Document: 00116058015 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2010 Entry ID: 5443428 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1 ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................3 I. “God” means “God” ...........................................................................4 II. The “Power, Prestige and Financial Support of Government” Has Real Consequences............................................14 III. The Organizations Which Have Involved Themselves in this Case Demonstrate that the Case is About (Christian) Monotheism........................................................................................15 IV. Congress’ 2002 Reaffirmation of the Pledge was a Sham
    [Show full text]
  • Boisi Center Interviews No
    the boisi center interviews no. 3: October 18, 2006 michael newdow is a lawyer, physician and First Amendment activist whose legal challenge to the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance reached the Supreme Court in 2004. He spoke with Boisi Center associate director Erik Owens before participating in a panel on religious freedom and the pledge of allegiance. owens: What do you think is the owens: Do you think it’s appropriate to say what is a correct religious view. That’s function of a pledge of allegiance—not use the pledge in naturalization cere- my objection to the words “under God” just the American version, but a pledge of monies or VFW meetings or other such appearing in the pledge. allegiance as such? gatherings? owens: Was your legal challenge to the newdow: The function of a pledge, I school policy of the pledge or was it to the think, is to get people to respect their pledge as such? form of government. Now, I’m not a big newdow: The challenge was to the pledger; I’m not into group-speak. But I pledge as such—to the idea that the accept the fact that we have a pledge, and government of the United States essen- I have no objections to it except for the tially says there is a God. If you say we two words “under God.” are “under God,” it implies there’s a God. owens: It seems to me that this pledge Because I’m an atheist, that turns me is a form of civic education to conform into a second-class citizen, and it perpet- people’s ideas of what America ought uates the animus against atheists that I to be or what we are as citizens.
    [Show full text]
  • F3 Newsflash MARCH 2010 Federal Court Upholds Constitutionality of Pledge of Allegiance in Public Schools
    No. 10-30 F3 NewsFlash MARCH 2010 Federal Court Upholds Constitutionality of Pledge of Allegiance in Public Schools The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently declared that a teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in California public schools is constitutional. (Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) ___ F.3d ___, 2010 WL 816986.) In a 2-1 majority opinion, the Court held that recitation of the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge did not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the enactment of any law or official policy in support of religion. The Court’s decision also included a 123-page dissent. The case ended a ten-year long pursuit by plaintiff Dr. Michael Newdow, who originally challenged recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public schools in 2000. In the original case, Newdow I -III (“Newdow III”), the Ninth Circuit sided with Newdow, holding that a school district’s policy requiring teachers to lead their classes in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Establishment Clause. On appeal, however, the United States Supreme Court declined to reach the substantive constitutional issues, ruling that Newdow lacked standing to assert his claim because he had no custody rights over his daughter. The Plaintiffs in the current case included Newdow and three unnamed parents of children currently attending schools in the Rio Linda Union School District. The Plaintiffs challenged the District’s policy and practice established under California Education Code section 52720, which required a teacher-led, daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
    [Show full text]
  • Elk Grove Unified School District V. Newdow." American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law
    Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law Volume 13 | Issue 1 Article 13 2005 Elk Grove Unified choS ol District v. Newdow Rachel Prouser Amerian University Washington College of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/jgspl Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Prouser, Rachel. "Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow." American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law. 13, no. 1 (2005): 1-26. This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Prouser: Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NEWDOW 124 S. CT. 2301 (2004) Introduction........................................................................................ 235 I. Factual Background........................................................................ 236 II. Legal Background ......................................................................... 238 A. Standing............................................................................... 238 B. The Establishment Clause................................................... 239 III. Procedural History ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • "Goodness Without Godness", with Professor Phil Zuckerman
    THE SECULAR CIRCULAR Newsletter of the Humanist Society of Santa Barbara www.SBHumanists.org MARCH 2012 March Program Speaker: Michael Newdow Subject: Our Coruscating Constitution Mike Newdow - whom you may remember from his (unfortunately short-lived) victory in challenging "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance a decade ago - will discuss our nation's Constitution, which he didn't really discover himself until he brought his case in the federal courts. Newdow will give an entertaining, educational, and inspiring presentation that puts the document in its historical perspective. Emphasizing its religion clauses, he will explain the Establishment Clause, a uniquely American idea that (as is the case today) has repeatedly been attacked since its ratification 220 years ago. Join him on that journey, and gain a new understanding of the most important lesson from your junior high school American History courses. See how the framers of our great national charter consistently shied away from references to God, as they spoke repeatedly of "freedom of conscience" in matters of religion. Learn how they intended for that freedom to be guaranteed to all. And leave with a new sense of pride in the American experiment that now, more than ever, should be seen as among the greatest of advances in human civilization. Michael Newdow's appearance at HSSB is sponsored by Richard and Penny Martin. When: Saturday, March 17th, 2012. Doors open at 2:30 pm, program begins at 3:00 pm. Where: Patio Room at Vista del Monte Please park only in spaces behind the church marked "VDM" Fee: Optional donation: $2 for members, $5 for non-members Dining: Vista Del Monte.
    [Show full text]