Alonzo Fyfe

I posted this on another thread as well, bit it seems relevant here.

The principle of 'standing' says that, in order to get a case heard before the courts, you must have something to lose -- or something at stake -- in the decision. The court will not take a case if you merely disagree with a law 'on principle'. The court will say that you lack standing, and will throw the case out.

This is the relevance of Newdow having a daughter in school. Without this, then Newdow was simply objecting to the law on principle -- it did not materially affect him one way or another. He did not have standing.

How, he has a daughter who is actually affected by the law -- the law is actually being enforced against his daughter. It is now a part of his family's life that is being directed by this law.

As a father, Mr. Newdow has a right to raise his child as he sees fit (within limits). Part of this is to direct his religious education. Every day the school system tells her daughter that atheists are outsiders, an excluded group. This can be expected to be a barier (a form of coercion) limiting her daughter's ability to give her father's beliefs due consideration. Even if the father says that there is nothing wrong with being an atheist, the daughter goes to school and gets a contrary message.

Mr. Newdow, now, has standing in claiming that it is illegal for the government to be giving him a contrary message that his (the father's) beliefs are to be rejected.

Grumpy

So what if it does? Another plaintiff can step forward. Even if the facts in the Newdow case are shaky (i.e. his split custody of his daughter, the fact that he's more offended than she is, etc.), a ruling based on those facts should not prejudice a similar lawsuit from a plaintiff arguing from a stronger position.

But how much stronger do the facts need to be? Would it help if the plaintiff was not an atheist, but simply someone who objects to having their child say "under God"? Must the plaintiff be a two-parent family? Does it matter if the child actually refuses to say the Pledge?

As I pointed out in another thread, there was no dissent on the question of Newdow's standing in the 9th Circuit ruling. Granted, so far the fact-finding in the case has been rather limited. But as I understand it, at this level of appeal, new facts (such as the daughter's beliefs) cannot be introduced.

Splat

I've spent a lot of time wondering what the response might have been like if Newdow had been a xian who didn't want his daughter to say the pledge because he considered it blasphemous? (As I understand it, some folks objected to the 1954 change for exactly that reason.)

I'm willing to bet that there never would have been a 99-0 senate vote on the matter, or the clown show on the senate steps (and Lady Shea's senator would have had to waffle even more than he did, if that's possible). But constitutionally, it's exactly the same issue isn't it?

{tags}

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Toto

That's essentially the position that the Jehavah's Witnesses are in. But they got an exemption from saying the Pledge, without challenging the majority's right to say "under God".

capsaicin67

I agree with your original assessment of what he said, as well. It looks like a carefully crafted letter intended to say nothing. As for what he and the other jokers mean, well, I agree with Philosoft on that:
"What he means is, since he's a Christian it's okay to officially discriminate against atheists because this is a Christian nation and if unpatriotic atheists really want to say the pledge, well they can just not say the parts they don't agree with."
You got a letter designed to say nothing while they pursue what they mean in actuality.
As for the Newdow girl, I don't know many teens that are big Constitutional Law fans, especially when they realize that their peers, peers' parents, CNN, etc have taken up pitchforks and torches and unanimously lost their minds. Even if they possibly did understand the issue. That's not going to help you win most popularity contests at school, when you are tarred and feathered as an Enemy of the Reich.
Shhhhboy, the fundy dominated One True Media is going to take all this to the hilt and wage a very distasteful media and meaning war......and they control most of the spigots. Yuk. As for the substance of the case, which is better elaborated on by some of you, it will be interesting to see if integrity and uncommon sense rules the day, or if the fundy disinformation campaign + the rest of the public's lack of understanding does........