Evolved

I am pleased with his letter, much more so than Dorgan's at least he supports Seperation of Church and State.

****
Thank you for contacting me regarding the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiancein public schools. It was good to hear from you.

I appreciate hearing your support for a ruling by a federal appeals court regarding the Pledge of Allegiance. As you know, on June 26 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools in unconstitutional. Specifically, a three-judge panel ruled that saying the phrase "under God" in public schools violates the seperation of church and state requirement in the U.S. Constitution. As you may also know, this ruling is currently on hold pending an appeal.

The COnstitution's requirement that we keep the realms of church and state seperate is one I strongly support. Furthermore, we must ensure that students are not forced to participate in religious exercises at public schools. I am, however, troubled by this court's overly broad ruling. I hold out hope that as our federal judiciary reviews this ruling, it will make a decision that is fair and sensible, taking into account our country's traditions as well as our rich diversity.

Please be assured I will keep your comments in mind when this issue comes before the Senate. Thank you again for contacting me.
****

What worries me is the line "our country's traditions as well as our rich diversity" because it seems to me that Conrad thinks 'Under God' would be considered a National Tradition and we shouldn't mess with tradition.

Stephen Maturin

Thanks for passing on the letter, Evolved. This one's better than most. Even so:

That's just what we needed -- yet another inaccurate description of the Ninth Circuit's holding.

Cool. Public officials who'll acknowledge publicly that separation is a constitutional requirement are few and far between these days.

Still with ya, senator!

Oops. Well, the hammer had to fall sometime, I suppose. I wonder what he means by "overly broad." As I ready the decision, the court ruled as narrowly as it could have and still resolve the dispute before it. Guess we'll never know, since the senator chose not to give any reasons for his conclusion.

Is he implying that the Ninth Circuit's decision was something other than "fair and sensible"? If so, how? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

This is almost funny. The circumstances under which "under God" was added to the Pledge hardly indicate an intent to acknowledge or celebrate "our rich diversity."

That's a perfectly legit concern, Evolved. What you described is basic Scaliaism: if it's been going on long enough, it's constitutional per se. It's even more troubling in this context because of all the bullshit that's gotta be shoveled to support the contention that including "under God" in the Pledge was somehow reflective of national traditions.