The Pledge of Allegiance

1
The Pledge of Allegiance
Student’s Name:
Name of Institution
Course Name or Course Number
Professor’s Name
Date of Submission
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2
The Pledge of Allegiance
A summary of the salient points of the Supreme Court cases: Elk Grove Unified School
District v. Newdow and Jane Doe v. Acton-Boxborogh Regional School District.
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow
The concerned law, in this case, entailed the two strands of the US Supreme Court:
Article III standing, and Prudential standing. Article III standing addresses the enforcement of
the US Constitution's controversy or case requirement. On the other hand, prudential standing
entails judicially self-imposed restrictions in exercising federal authority. The limitations of
Article III are familiar in the sense that the plaintiff should demonstrate that the conduct he or he
seeks redress caused him or her to suffer an "injury in fact" that an impartial judge would
remedy.
In this case, an atheist father argued that the phrase "under God" included in the Pledge of
Allegiance contravened the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
The father proceeded to state that the policy of the school district violated the Constitution. The
Ninth Circuit's Court of Appeal held that the father had standing and held in his favor. The case
was appealed to the Supreme Court.
The primary issue at the Supreme Court was whether the father had standing. The
Supreme Court established that the father lacked standing. Since he did not have custodial
authority over the child, he lacked prudential standing to lodge the federal court suit. Therefore,
the federal court errored in entertaining the claim by a father whose right to institute the claim
was based on disputable family law rights (Munoz, 2015). Moreover, neither the school district
nor the child's mother had done anything to impair the father's right to instruct his daughter based
on his religious beliefs.

Jane Doe v. Acton-Boxborogh Regional School District
In this case, two questions of state statutory and constitutional law were presented. The
first issue was whether the defendant's school breached the plaintiff's right under the
Massachusetts Constitution stipulation of equal protection rights through the daily recitation of
the Pledge of Allegiance. The plaintiff claimed that the inclusion of the word "under God"
violated the child's rights. Furthermore, the plaintiff claimed that the School violated G.L. c. 76,
§ 5 that forbids discrimination in public education in Massachusetts. However, the court
reasoned that the pledge's recitation did not violate the statute or the Constitution, as it is entirely
voluntary, and no one is forced to recite it (Wellenreiter, 2020).
The Supreme Court’s decisions in these cases
In Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, the Supreme Court held that the phrase
"under God" did not contravene the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First
Amendment. The court contended that Newdow did not demonstrate how the pledge of
allegiance discriminated against atheists. Furthermore, the Supreme Court stated that Michael
Newdow had no sufficient custody of the girl, thus did not qualify as a legal representative
(Carroll, 2018). The Supreme Court decision was arrived at through voting, where eight judges
wanted the Court of Appeal ruling to be reversed.
The Supreme court's main legal contention was whether the father had standing, and the
court found that he did not have standing. Given that the father was not a legal custodian of the
child, he lacked standing to bring an action on behalf of his daughter. Besides, both the school
and the child's mother did not prevent him from instructing his daughter according to his
religious views. The Supreme Court decided a statement by Newdow's wife, Sandani, that she
had no objection to the clause. Sandani had full physical custody of their daughter and had legal
standing as the bona fide representative of their daughter.
In Jane Doe v. Acton-Boxborogh Regional School District, one of the Supreme Court's
issues was whether the school violated the right of the plaintiff of the protection of equal rights
as encapsulated under the Massachusetts Constitution. According to the plaintiff, it was evident
since students recite the allegiance pledge with the words "under God" incorporated in the pledge
of allegiance. Furthermore, the plaintiff claimed that the School violated G.L. c. 76, § 5 that
forbids discrimination in public education in Massachusetts. However, the court reasoned that
the recitation of the pledge did not violate a statute or the Constitution, as it is entirely voluntary,
and no one is forced to recite it.
Discuss whether or not you think public schools should be allowed to recite the pledge.
I think all public schools should be permitted to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. It is
because they are formed and founded by the United States government. The pledge shows
commitments and patriotism of US citizens. More so, it is a sign of national peace, liberty, and
unity. It strengthens the beliefs of a citizen in God who founded the country.
On the other hand, the pledge should not be recited at all. It violates the rights of those
pupils who have a different religious belief. They cannot recite it since it goes against their faith,
and everyone has freedom of worship.
Not only does the recitation of the pledge of allegiance signify nationalism, but it also
demonstrates one's respect for the country and for the people who lost their lives to make the
nation the leader of democracy in the entire world. Moreover, it enables children to understand
the nation's history, including the transformation and struggles the country has gone through
(Martin, Lauzon, Benus, & Livas, 2017). Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance strengthened the
American belief and commitment in the creator, God. Although the Congress stated that the
added clause "under God" was not meant to create a religion, it promoted monotheism in real
terms.
References
Carroll, J. (2018). Family law is not “civil”: the faulty foundation of the domestic relations
exception to federal jurisdiction. Family Law Quarterly, 52(1), 125-145.
Martin, L. A., Lauzon, G. P., Benus, M. J., & Livas Jr, P. (2017, July). E Pluribus Unum:
Mohawk Indian students’ views regarding the US Pledge of Allegiance. In The
Educational Forum (Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 256-266). Routledge.
Munoz, V. P. (2015). Religious Liberty and the American Supreme Court: The Essential Cases
and Documents. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Wellenreiter, B. R. (2020). When Students Refuse to Recite the Pledge of Allegiance: Preservice
Teachers’ Responses. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues
and Ideas, 93(1), 19-26.

The Pledge of Allegiance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Pledge of Allegiance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

The Pledge of Allegiance

Course Name or Course Number

The Pledge of Allegiance

District v. Newdow and Jane Doe v. Acton-Boxborogh Regional School District.

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow

entails judicially self-imposed restrictions in exercising federal authority. The limitations of

was appealed to the Supreme Court.

on his religious beliefs.

Jane Doe v. Acton-Boxborogh Regional School District

§ 5 that forbids discrimination in public education in Massachusetts. However, the court

voluntary, and no one is forced to recite it (Wellenreiter, 2020).

The Supreme Court’s decisions in these cases

wanted the Court of Appeal ruling to be reversed.

standing as the bona fide representative of their daughter.

and no one is forced to recite it.

and everyone has freedom of worship.

exception to federal jurisdiction. Family Law Quarterly, 52(1), 125-145.

Mohawk Indian students’ views regarding the US Pledge of Allegiance. In The

Educational Forum (Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 256-266). Routledge.

and Documents. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Teachers’ Responses. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues

and Ideas, 93(1), 19-26.

You might also like