[lbo-talk] constitutional law question

andie nachgeborenen andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com
Sun Jun 4 12:23:47 PDT 2006


The Nineth Circuit held the inclusion of the espression "under God" in the Pledge of Allegience" uncomstitutional, Newdow v. U.S. Congress 328 F.3d 466, 490 (9th Cir. 2003), rev'd Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004), but the S.Ct reversed.

The S,Ct has never faced the "In God We Trust" issue directly, but indication of the way it would go is given the this excerpt from a dissent in a Ten Commandments case by two of the most liberal members pf the Court, Stevens and Ginsberg, who treat the inscription as " an appendage to a common article of commerce (“In God we Trust”)":

The message at issue in this case, however, is fundamentally different from either a bland admonition to observe generally accepted rules of behavior or a general history lesson. The reason this message stands apart is that the Decalogue is a venerable religious text.FN14 As we held 25 years ago, it is beyond dispute that “[t]he Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths.” Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 41, 101 S.Ct. 192, 66 L.Ed.2d 199 (1980) (per curiam) (footnote omitted). For many followers, the Commandments represent the literal word of God as spoken to Moses and repeated to his followers after descending from Mount Sinai. The message conveyed by the Ten Commandments thus cannot be analogized to an appendage to a common article of commerce (“In God we Trust”) or an incidental part of a familiar recital (“God save the United States and this honorable Court”).

Van Orden v. Perry 125 S.Ct. 2854, 2879 (2005).

This is a dissent, not law, of course, but if thsi is what the good guys oin the court think, then "In God We Trust" is not going to be removed on Establsihment clause grounds.

Here is a concurrence by O'Connor, Stevens and Brennan joinging:

Moreover, I joined the Court's discussion in Part II of Lynch concerning government acknowledgments of religion in American life because, in my view, acknowledgments such as the legislative prayers upheld in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 103 S.Ct. 3330, 77 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983), and the printing of “In God We Trust” on our coins serve the secular purposes of “solemnizing public occasions, expressing confidence in the future and encouraging the recognition of what is worthy of appreciation in society.” Lynch, 465 U.S., at 693, 104 S.Ct., at 1369 (concurring opinion). Because they serve such secular purposes and because of their “history and ubiquity,” such government acknowledgments of religion are not understood as conveying an endorsement of particular religious beliefs. Ibid. At the same time, it is clear that “[g]overnment practices that purport to celebrate or acknowledge events with religious significance must be subjected to careful judicial scrutiny.” Id., at 694, 104 S.Ct., at 1370.

County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter 492 U.S. 573, 625 (1989)

The following long quote id from a creche case, the remarks about "In Gof We Trust" are dicta (not law), but explain the Court's position pretty cleary:

C

There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789. Seldom in our opinions was this more affirmatively expressed than in Justice Douglas' opinion for the Court validating a program allowing release of *675 public school students from classes to attend off-campus religious exercises. Rejecting a claim that the program violated the Establishment Clause, the Court asserted pointedly: “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Zorach v. Clauson, supra, 343 U.S., at 313, 72 S.Ct., at 684. See also Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 213, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 1566, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963). Our history is replete with official references to the value and invocation of Divine guidance in deliberations and pronouncements of the Founding Fathers and contemporary leaders. Beginning in the early colonial period long before Independence, a day of Thanksgiving was celebrated as a religious holiday to give thanks for the bounties of Nature as gifts from God. President Washington and his successors proclaimed Thanksgiving, with all its religious overtones, a day of national celebration FN2 and Congress made it a National Holiday more than a century ago. Ch. 167, 16 Stat. 168 (1870). That holiday has not lost its theme of expressing thanks for Divine aid FN3 any more than has Christmas lost its religious significance.

FN2. The day after the First Amendment was proposed, Congress urged President Washington to proclaim “a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts, the many and signal favours of Almighty God.” See A. Stokes & L. Pfeffer, Church and State in the United States 87 (rev. 1st ed. 1964). President Washington proclaimed November 26, 1789, a day of thanksgiving to “offer[ ] our prayers and supplications to the Great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions····” 1 J. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897 64 (1899).

Presidents Adams and Madison also issued thanksgiving proclamations, as have almost all our presidents, see 3 A. Stokes, Church and State in the United States 180-193 (1950), through the incumbent, see Proclamation No. 4883, 46 Fed.Reg. 56,153 (1981).

FN3. An example is found in President Roosevelt's 1944 Proclamation of Thanksgiving:

“[I]t is fitting that we give thanks with special fervor to our Heavenly Father for the mercies we have received individually and as a nation and for the blessings He has restored, through the victories of our arms and those of our Allies, to His children in other lands.

* * *

To the end that we may bear more earnest witness to our gratitude to Almighty God, I suggest a nationwide reading of the Holy Scriptures during the period from Thanksgiving Day to Christmas.” Proclamation No. 2629, 9 Fed.Reg. 13,099 (1944).

President Reagan and his immediate predecessors have issued similar proclamations. See, e.g., Proclamation No. 5098, 48 Fed.Reg. 42,801 (1983); Proclamation No. 4803, 45 Fed.Reg. 75,633 (1980); Proclamation No. 4333, 39 Fed.Reg. 40,003 (1974); Proclamation No. 4093, 36 Fed.Reg. 21,401 (1971); Proclamation No. 3752, 31 Fed.Reg. 13,635 (1966); Proclamation No. 3560, 28 Fed.Reg. 11,871 (1963).

*676 Executive Orders and other official announcements of Presidents and of the Congress have proclaimed both Christmas and Thanksgiving National Holidays in religious terms. And, by Acts of Congress, it has long been the practice that federal employees are released from duties on these National Holidays, while being paid from the same public revenues that provide **1361 the compensation of the Chaplains of the Senate and the House and the military services. See J. Res. 5, 23 Stat. 516 (1885). Thus, it is clear that Government has long recognized-indeed it has subsidized-holidays with religious significance. Other examples of reference to our religious heritage are found in the statutorily prescribed national motto “In God We Trust,” 36 U.S.C. § 186, which Congress and the President mandated for our currency, see 31 U.S.C. § 324, and in the language “One nation under God,” as part of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. That pledge is recited by thousands of public school children-and adults-every year. Art galleries supported by public revenues display religious paintings of the 15th and 16th centuries, predominantly inspired by one religious faith. The National Gallery in *677 Washington, maintained with Government support, for example, has long exhibited masterpieces with religious messages, notably the Last Supper, and paintings depicting the Birth of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, among many others with explicit Christian themes and messages.FN4 The very chamber in which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated with a notable and permanent-not seasonal-symbol of religion: Moses with Ten Commandments. Congress has long provided chapels in the Capitol for religious worship and meditation.

FN4. The National Gallery regularly exhibits more than 200 similar religious paintings.

There are countless other illustrations of the Government's acknowledgment of our religious heritage and governmental sponsorship of graphic manifestations of that heritage. Congress has directed the President to proclaim a National Day of Prayer each year “on which [day] the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.” 36 U.S.C. § 169h. Our Presidents have repeatedly issued such Proclamations.FN5 Presidential Proclamations and messages have also issued to commemorate Jewish Heritage Week, Proclamation No. 4844, 46 Fed.Reg. 25,07 7 (1981), and the Jewish High Holy Days, 17 Weekly Comp.Pres.Doc. 1058 (Sept. 29, 1981). One cannot look at even this brief resume without finding that our history is pervaded by expressions of religious beliefs such as are found in Zorach, supra. Equally pervasive is the evidence of accommodation of all faiths and all forms of religious expression, and hostility toward none. Through this accommodation,*678 as Justice Douglas observed, governmental action has “follow[ed] the best of our traditions” and “respect [ed] the religious nature of our people.” Id., 343 U.S., at 314, 72 S.Ct., at 684.

FN5. See, e.g., Proclamation No. 5017, 48 Fed.Reg. 4261 (1983); Proclamation No. 4795, 45 Fed.Reg. 62,969 (1980); Proclamation No. 4379, 40 Fed.Reg. 25,429 (1975); Proclamation No. 4087, 36 Fed.Reg. 19,961 (1971); Proclamation No. 3812, 32 Fed.Reg. 14,015 (1967); Proclamation No. 3501, 27 Fed.Reg. 10,147 (1962).

III

This history may help explain why the Court consistently has declined to take a rigid, absolutist view of the Establishment Clause. We have refused “to construe the Religion Clauses with a literalness that would undermine the ultimate constitutional objective as illuminated by history.” Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 664, 671, 90 S.Ct. 1409, 1412, 25 L.Ed.2d 697 (1970) (Emphasis added). In our modern, complex society, whose traditions and constitutional underpinnings rest on and encourage diversity and pluralism in all areas, an absolutist approach in applying the Establishment Clause is simplistic and has been uniformly rejected by the Court. Rather than mechanically invalidating all governmental conduct or statutes that confer benefits or give special recognition to religion in general or to one faith-as an absolutist approach would dictate-the Court has scrutinized challenged legislation or official conduct to determine whether, in **1362 reality, it establishes a religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.

Lynch v. Donnelly 465 U.S. 668, 674-678 (1984)

--- Seth Ackerman <sethackerman1 at verizon.net> wrote:


> Does anybody know whether the In God We Trust
> inscription has ever been
> challenged in the Supreme Court and, if so, what
> rationale was used to
> uphold it?
>
> When you talk about religion with French people,
> they always seem unable
> to believe that we actually have separation of
> church and state. Every
> Frenchman you talk to will immediately bring up the
> fact that the
> president says God Bless America and that Congress
> starts its sessions
> with a prayer. When you point out that nobody can
> forbid the president
> or Congress to talk about God, they will then cite
> In God We Trust. (I
> swear, it's like they're reading from a catechism.)
> At that point, I'm
> forced to concede that they have a point. But
> they're always genuinely
> surprised to hear that that courts regularly strike
> down laws that
> improperly give money to churches or permit
> organized prayer.
>
> Anyway, bref....Answers would be greatly
> appreciated!
>
> Seth
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list