Essay Sample on Newdow v. Elk Grove: An Establishment Clause Test Case

Introduction

In his suit against the California district schools, Newdow contended that the phrase "one nation, under God," in the pledge of allegiance, was a violation of the establishment clause. The case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, therefore, brought to the fore fundamental constitutional issues, and the question of whether the pledge of allegiance is a patriotic or religious exercise.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The first salient point was the consideration of whether Newdow had the legal standing to challenge the school's policy on the pledge recitation. The court held that Newdow had no legal authority to speak for his daughter. He had no legal standing to act as his daughter's "next friend." The reasons were that the child's sole legal custody was under Sandra Banning, who also had the exclusive authority over the minor's education. The case was unanimously decided in an 8-0 vote. Newdow did not have the prudential standing to litigate on his behalf because of the custody arrangement. However, the issue of legal standing had dissent from three judges who reckoned that Newdow had the standing to file the suit (Meng, 2004).

The second salient point was whether the school contravened the first amendment. In his opinion, Justice Rehnquist reckoned that the term "under God" was not an endorsement or establishment of religion but a mere acknowledgment of the United States' religious heritage and the integral role of religion to the founders of the nation. Therefore, the opinion declared that the pledge is neither indoctrination in religion nor an affirmation of religious devotion, but a secular act. According to Justice Thomas, declaring the pledge unconstitutional would be tantamount to unjustifiably expanding the idea of coercing the learners to be prayerful. The Supreme Court, through its ruling, preserved the "one nation under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance (Meng, 2004).

The third salient point was the perceived conflict between the establishment clause vs. the incorporation doctrine. Newdow argued that the daily recitation of the phrase was a violation of the establishment clause. Further, he claimed that an earlier ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), which had allowed students who did not want to recite the pledge to opt-out, forced his daughter into watching and listening as teachers and students proclaimed that there is God, which was against his wishes. However, Justice Thomas opined that the Establishment Clause is not a right that applies to persons on the premise of the Incorporation Doctrine. According to him, the clause limits the federal government's powers to interfere in the rights of different states to come up with their official religions. The majority, however, averred that states do not have the right to establish their religions, pursuant to the implementation of the Incorporation Doctrine. As a result, the Ninth Circuit's decision was reversed on the grounds of procedural law, and the court found that the matter did not offend the constitution (Meng, 2004).

The Levels of The Court Through Which The Case Evolved Before It Reached The Supreme Court

The case was initially filed at the district court. Newdow filed a lawsuit at the Sacramento district court against the federal government, the state, and five California school districts, petitioning them to remove the phrase "one nation, under God" from the allegiance pledge. On June 26, 2002, the court ruled that Newdow, as a parent, had the legal standing to challenge the practice because it interfered with his right to direct his daughter's religious education. Borrowing from the Lemon Test case, the Coercion Test, and the Endorsement Test, The court held that the phrase "under God" in the pledge was a violation of the Establishment Clause. For example, Justice Fernandez argued that the words "under God" represented a minimal religious content that was so trivial and beneath judicial notice.

The case then proceeded to the Circuit court. According to the circuit court, the pledge of allegiance was a violation of the establishment clause. The 9th circuit reversed the decision of the district court, which had dismissed the complaint. The court ruled that Newdow had legal standing to sue on behalf of his daughter because it interfered with his right to guide his daughter's spiritual direction. The 9th circuit ruled that the pledge of allegiance violated the establishment clause of the first amendment (Russo & Mawdsley, 2007).

The Decision of the Supreme Court in This Case in Brief

The Supreme Court ruled that Newdow did not have the legal standing to sue on behalf of his daughter. According to justices Anthony M. Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and David H. Souter, it was prudent for the federal court to refrain from trying to resolve such a substantial constitutional matter because the lower courts had not established Newdow's standing and the status of custody. Therefore, the Supreme Court opted to stay its hand on the matter. Even so, justices Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, and Clarence Thomas largely agreed with the outcome, though in their partial dissent, they reckoned that Newdow had standing. They argued that the words "under God" did not convert the recitation into a religious creed or create a religion. Also, According to Justice O'Connor, the phrase "under God" was an attempt to recognize religion and to acknowledge its solemnizing powers, without inclining towards any belief system or religious sect (Prouser, 2005).

The Fundamental Impact That the Court Decision In Question Has Had On American Society In General and On Ethics in American Society In Particular

The constitutionality of having religious references through the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance has been an issue of ethical and legal controversy. The opinion is divided on whether the phrase is an endorsement of religion or if the patriotic observance has been craftily turned into prayer with government approval. Depending on one's standpoint, it is probable to view the pledge as ceremonial deism, which is not a religious call to partake in prayer or pay allegiance to any deity.

The case Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow brought to the fore the thin line between religion and the promotion of patriotism. The appellate judges reckoned that the phrase "under God" was inserted and used to promote religion and not to advance patriotism as earlier envisioned. The court further averred that the words "under God" served to exclude children who were not adherents to religion by imposing indirect social pressure on them.

Adherents have maintained that the phrase "under God" does not turn the patriotic observance into a religious activity that advances the belief in God. The 7th circuit court, for example, had ruled that as long as the learners had the liberty to participate or to abscond, then the state law dint not present any infringement on the personal rights of the students to desist the observance (Prouser, 2005). In like manner, the pledge of allegiance has been widely criticized as been an endorsement of religion by the government. Critics also contend that the pledge is not compatible with freedom and democracy, and is a violation of the constitution. Many families have voiced their dissent to the religious reference. Children who do not subscribe to religion should not be compelled to recite the pledge because such as observance conflicts with their philosophical and religious beliefs. Hence, the learners should not be coerced to participate in the recitation.

The ethical controversy is on whether the phrase "under God' meets the threshold of prayer and whether it is ethical to impose the pledge in public schools without removing the religious reference. As an example, Justice Thomas, in support of the wording in the pledge of allegiance, reckoned that the words "under God" should be struck out to ensure consistency with constitutional precedents, because the phrase presented the potential for religious coercion. The judge argued that individuals should not be coerced or required to declare a belief against their wishes, as per the long-standing precedents. He reckoned that it was rather apparent that the pledge affirmed the existence of God. The insertion of the "under God" words in the pledge had religious motivation; hence it should not be validated constitutionally. The argument is that just because a religious term is used frequently, it does not become less religious. Also, there is the consideration that just because a constitutional violation has been normalized, it does not cease to be impairment, and it does not become justified.

Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance Is a Religious Issue or a Sign of Respect for the United States

The recitation of the pledge of allegiance is mostly a sign of respect for the country, and not a religious issue. The underpinning concept of the pledge is that a nation that stands together under one God is united and thrives on justice and liberty for all. The promise is to honor and be faithful to the national flag, which is the symbol of the country. The pledge affirms that the nation is indivisible, and it belongs to every person in the country. Each person promises to be devoted to the country and to cherish the prevailing freedom and not to take the sacrifice made by the numerous man and women who paid the ultimate prize to ensure that present-day citizens can live in peace. Overall, the recitation of the pledge is a patriotic action that affirms collective loyalty and respect, whereby many states joined to form one country, nation, under the banner of one Supreme Being (God).

Why Public Schools Should Be Allowed To Recite the Pledge

Public schools should recite the pledge to spur patriotism amongst the learners. When children recite the pledge every day, the message of patriotism is reinforced in their minds, and they can deeply reflect on its significance and meaning. The pledge is a daily ritual to honor the nation, and it acts as an oath of loyalty to the U.S republic. The pledge has to be recited daily by school children through standing attention, placing the right hand over the chest, and facing the flag, as well as taking the military salute.

Being a symbol of national unity, the pledge acts as a mark of loyalty and patriotism to the United States, it inspires feelings of pride in one's country and makes one feel like part of the United States. The pledge proclaims that all Americans are united and that they can stand together as a nation and work together for the good of the country. Therefore, it is a platform that enables each child to reflect on their role as a citizen, and to incubate the feelings of loyalty and patriotism as they grow. In like manner, teachers explain the meaning of the pledge to the children so that the recitation does not become just another mundane task but a way of entrenching patriotism in the young learners.

Though critics argue that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance does not necessarily demonstrate patriotism, and failure to describe does not mean that they are anti-patriotic, the practice of standing in unity as a nation is paramount, especially for young children. Overall, the pledge of allegiance is an expression of loyalty and commitment to the nation's flag and the U.S republic. Critical national events and government meetings like the congressional sessions begin with a recital of the pledge. All the individual states, apart from Iowa, Hawaii, Wyoming, California, and Vermont, require all public schools to recite the pledge. Thus, it logically follows that the recitation of the pledge by young children is integral in help...