Marci is correct, insofar as the10th
Circuit's Summum decision is concerned, because that decision appears
to holdthat a city may not be (viewpoint-) selective in choosing which
privately donated monuments to erect on public grounds.
But my point was that the Summum holding cannot possibly
Marty makes some very good points. The problem here is the Ten Commandments, which are not your typical monument. I have been assuming that the Ten Commandments were not the city's _expression_, but rather the Eagles'. If they are the city's _expression_, the city has an additional set of
Here's the introduction of an associated press story:
Justices Take Case on Pledge of Allegiance's 'God' Reference
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 14, 2003
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the
Pledge of Allegiance recited by generations of American
Yes, if the City of Caspar
(implausibly) argues that its Ten Commandments monument is "private" _expression_,
and insists on retaining that monument, then it will be hard-pressed to exclude
the homophobic monument. But I was assuming, from the L.A. Times article,
that because Caspar
Be curious to see the difference in
attitudes about whether
a) a pledge that has been recited by
generations of school children is unconstitutional and
b) a pledge that has been recited since
the 1950s is unconstitutional (two generations by my count).
MAG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/14/03
I understand yourpremise of the suggestion for doing
away with the public forum doctrine is that there exist numerous other
opportunities for public _expression_. I reject this premise. It seems
to me that in such cases as U.S. v. Kokinda, ISKCON v. Lee, and Arkansas Ed.
Tele. Comm. v. Forbes,
The Court specified the questions to be briefed. The second question seems to me to at
least raise the possibility that the emphasis in a decision could be on the fact that
the policy has teachers leading the pledge, rather than simply on the addition of the
words under God to the statute. And
Also significant, I think, is that the Supreme Court DENIED the cert
petition from the United States (and also the petition that had been
filed by Newdow himself), although it did invite the Solicitor General
to submit a brief in the case in which it granted cert.
John C. Eastman
Professor of
I don't quite see the significance of the denial of
the SG's peititon -- a petition that was, in truth,not much more than a
press release. The United States was not injured by the Ninth Circuit's
decision. The court of appeals expressly declined to enjoin any federal
official, 328 F.3d at
Title: Message
My
point exactly. The Denial of the U.S. petition means the focus is on the
state (or school district), not on the Act of Congress. So it is
Establishment Clause as incorporated, not as originally written. I made
the point in response to Bill Funk's post, which claimed in
10 matches
Mail list logo
