School or Institution Name (University at Place or Town, State)
I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
Salient Features
The case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow was determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. Children need to understand the significance of liberty and its contributions to be partisan in America. Teachers guide their students to read the promise of commitment each morning. The declaration under God became the main issue of the case and the First Amendment was the major element governing the case. The Supreme Court of America nullified the arguments of Newdow stating that pledge of alliance never desecrates religious beliefs of any student and is not unconstitutional. The primary cause which urged Newdow to file the case was that he was a non-believer. It became a custody battle between Newdow and his ex-wife. His ex-wife had different religious views and were not similar to Newdow. Besides, she also had the custody of the daughter to have an upper hand in the case and nullify the rationale of Newdow to bring up the case. The case also highlights the position derived from legitimate limits to authorities of a misleading or an unelected judiciary. The stance of Mr. Newdow and her wife are entirely in contrast to each other. The wife had no concerns upon the matter of her daughter reciting the pledge of allegiance unlike the husband who deemed it a blatant desecration of legitimate rights. In the end, the court ruled out Mr. Newdow’s stance upon the grounds of not being the lawful representative of the kid and eight impartialities manifested to reverse the ruling of an inferior court in his support.
Levels of CourtWhen Newdow filed a case in district court of the Eastern District of California, his daughter was studying in kindergarten in Elk Grove Unified School District and was a part of the pledge allegiance daily ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"8jWrfKjD","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}Elk Grove United School District v. Newdow,\\uc0\\u8221{} n.d.)","plainCitation":"(“Elk Grove United School District v. Newdow,” n.d.)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":520,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/yvjivw9i/items/WCP7K97K"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/yvjivw9i/items/WCP7K97K"],"itemData":{"id":520,"type":"webpage","title":"Elk Grove United School District v. Newdow","container-title":"Oyez","abstract":"A case in which the Court held that a divorced father did not have sufficient custody of his daughter to challenge the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment on her behalf.","URL":"https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/02-1624","language":"en","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",6,1]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (“Elk Grove United School District v. Newdow,” n.d.). The filed complaint seeks that the 1954 Act’s enclosure of the term “under God” violated the clauses related to free exercise and establishment in the Constitution of the United States. It was stipulated Newdow had the prerogative to charge a case on behalf of the daughter, himself and next friend. In this case, findings of Magistrate Justice underpinned the pledge to be viable and stated it is not contradictory to the establishment clause. The grievances were discharged by the court on July 21, 2000. However, the Court of Appeal announced a different verdict and gave split decisions based on advantages and Newdow’s stance. The first opinion unanimously made it imperative for Newdow to be a parent in order to raise voice for the right to direct the religious education of the daughter. Over the dispute of a judge, the court announced that policies of the School District and 1954 Act were contradictory to the First Amendment's clause of the establishment.
Afterward, the mother of the daughter raised concerns because of which the Superior Court of California entered an order directing Newdow to count the daughter as the unknown party on September 25, 2002. However, the order struggled to address the Newdow’s stance of Article III ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"w3a4TDAI","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits),\\uc0\\u8221{} 2014)","plainCitation":"(“Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits),” 2014)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":522,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/yvjivw9i/items/IQEUMA2X"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/yvjivw9i/items/IQEUMA2X"],"itemData":{"id":522,"type":"webpage","title":"Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits)","URL":"https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/elk-grove-v-newdow-brief-merits","language":"en","issued":{"date-parts":[["2014",10,21]]},"accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",6,1]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (“Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits),” 2014). Newdow’s stance was reassesses based on his wife’s motion in the second published opinion. In addition, the court announced in accordance with California’s law, Newdow had the right to expose the child to particular dogmas though those views may contradict with the mother's views. The objection of the mother as the sole custodian never overpower Newdow’s right to seek remedy for an attack against his parental interests. In February 29, 2003, an amended opinion discarded the first opinion and modified it to determine whether or not Newdow rejoiced declaratory relief related to the constitutionality of the act.
The decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court agreed to hearing related to following questions: whether or not Newdow has the privilege as a non-custodial parent to question policies of School District on the recitation of pledge allegiance and if the policy affects the First Amendment. In June 2004, five judges found Newdow lacked the substantial standing to bring the case in dimensions of next friend to the daughter. It was found he lacked prudential standing to take the case on his behalf because of custody arrangement. The rest of the three judges concurred but dissented on the matter of standing. They concluded as the Pledge is not an inculcation in the expression of religious devotion instead it defines a secular act. Impact of Decision on American Society
The verdict cast a significant impact on family ethics and beliefs in the United States. The recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance strengthens commitment and belief in God. The Congress also stated the clause “under God” never aimed at creating a religion instead it promoted monotheism. The verdict of the Supreme Court was announced after the wife reported she had no issues related to the cause. The wife possesses entire legal custody and thus was termed the legal representative of her daughter. Besides, both the husband and wife had conflicting relations and were divorced. The scenario is an explicit illustration of the significance of critical ethical relationships in families. A critical appraisal of the case reveals that the fundamental cause was the split relationship and widespread differences between the husband and wife. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would likely have reversed the verdict. American society is replete with widespread differences between couples based on religion, children and goals. The root of ethical issues is generated from such inconclusive issues between families. It is the fundamental responsibility of families and communities to resolve religious differences with each other and revered documents associated with national pride. If such differences persist, eliminating such contentious cases and ethical issues becomes highly unlikely.
Pledge Allegiance: A religious Issue?
Irrefutably, the recitation of the Pledge ought not to be deemed a religious matter. It is a matter which addresses the duty of and promises to the flag and state. It ought not to be deemed to prohibit the Establishment Clause as a reference to God is available in most of the documents as National Motto and National Anthem. These phrases have never inflicted any harm and the state of affairs is supposed to remain the same in the future also. Therefore, religion and politics should not be mixed based on personal conflicts and views. The pledge is a testimony for citizens who desire to express their loyalties with the United States of America in the United States of America ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"AwzMVy7D","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}The Pledge of Allegiance,\\uc0\\u8221{} n.d.)","plainCitation":"(“The Pledge of Allegiance,” n.d.)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":518,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/yvjivw9i/items/NSERECSE"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/yvjivw9i/items/NSERECSE"],"itemData":{"id":518,"type":"webpage","title":"The Pledge of Allegiance","URL":"http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",6,1]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (“The Pledge of Allegiance,” n.d.). The policies of reciting in schools invigorate national unity and patriotism. Views of opponents of reciting the pledge may hold water but they cannot succeed primary values of national pride, loyalty and reverence. The state is above all differences and conflicts regardless of views of cynics. In addition, children ought to be inculcated with cultural signs to make them a true and sincere patriot to the flag and the nation. In the Declaration of Independence, “endowed by creator” was utilized to establish the foundation of the nation on a traditional basis. Same is the case with the pledge recited in schools by children. These children are the bright future of America but require seasoned guidance and mentorship form elders. The Pledge of Allegiance is an essential piece indicating responsibilities and reverence for the American flag, culture and society.
Public Schools should be Permitted to Recite
Public schools should be permitted to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to enable them to show respect and honor for the flag and state. A wide range of critics has advanced to term the practice forceful. As per cynics, children should never be pushed to engage in patriotic acts and it relies independently on them whether to engage or not. The statement is flawed as children lack the required intellect and competency which calls for directing them in the initial stage to cultivate profound and revered habits in them. People die to honor America and the Pledge of Allegiance is the least we can contribute from our behalf. It is essential to comprehend the United States is a great nation where unwavering hard work and sublime commitment of citizens have made the state a leader of the free world. The flag has been there to symbolize the liberty to live life and freedom from oppression granted by the Bill of Rights and Constitution. It should be deemed an obligation and a privilege but unfortunately, the contemporary social structure has raised voice against the pledge. I believe the topic should not be even up for debate. We fought for justice and nation in the previous centuries and are obliged to pay allegiance to men who sacrificed their lives. The valiant soldiers are proud of the nation and we should make them feel proud by inculcating essential values in children at schools to make them loyal, honest and proud American citizens.
References
ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Elk Grove United School District v. Newdow. (n.d.). Retrieved June 1, 2019, from Oyez website: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/02-1624
Elk Grove v. Newdow - Brief (Merits). (2014, October 21). Retrieved June 1, 2019, from https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/elk-grove-v-newdow-brief-merits
The Pledge of Allegiance. (n.d.). Retrieved June 1, 2019, from http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm
