Fifty years to the day after Congress inserted the words “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance, the Supreme Court issued a resounding opinion refusing to say whether making schoolchildren utter these words violates the Constitution. California atheist Michael A. Newdow, the court ruled, lacked standing to challenge the pledge, because he does not have legal “control” over his daughter, a student in a school district where children recite the pledge daily. The decision turns one of the court’s hot-button cases into a real dud. Resolving a case on grounds of the legal standing of a litigant always has the feel of a cop-out. In contrast, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit considered his complaint despite Mr. Newdow’s lack of custody.
Writing for a five-member court majority, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that being a father was not enough. However, it could have been worse. Three justices – Sandra Day O’Connor, William H. Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas – disagreed and wished to reach the merits of the case and uphold the pledge.
The 1954 addition of the phrase “under God” to the government-established Pledge of Allegiance was an unqualified and unconstitutional endorsement of religion. This pairing of faith and patriotism is offensive to millions of Americans.
Furthermore, the political implications of ducking this hot button issue are disturbing. The Court conspicuously chose, in the midst of a presidential campaign, to announce its decision on the 50th anniversary of the inclusion of this exclusionary phrase in the Pledge. It’s hard to believe that this was a coincidence.
Ingemar Hulthage