Buck v. Bell? Yes; two (or three) generations of absurd Establishment Clause jurisprudence -- leading to the Ninth Circuit's decision -- is quite enough.
Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law -----Original Message----- From: Michael MASINTER [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 9:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Justices Take Case on Pledge of Allegiance's 'God' Reference Perhaps the relevant authority here is Buck v. Bell. Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Nova Southeastern University Fort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314 Shepard Broad Law Center (954) 262-6151 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Mark Graber wrote: > 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 11:12AM >>> > 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 schoolchildren > is an unconstitutional blending of church and state. > > The case sets up an emotional showdown over God in the public schools > and in public life. It will settle whether the phrase "one nation under > God" will remain a part of the patriotic oath as it is recited in most > classrooms. > > . . . . > > Dan Conkle > ************************************** > Daniel O. Conkle > Professor of Law > Indiana University School of Law > Bloomington, Indiana 47405 > (812) 855-4331 > fax (812) 855-0555 > e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ************************************** >
