Whether People Should Pledge Allegiance to The Flag

A Case Study on Whether People Should Pledge Allegiance to The Flag Student’s Name Institution A Case Study on Whether People Should Pledge Allegiance to The Flag Introduction There are several debates where people share their sentiments on whether or not they should plead allegiance to the flag. Religion and Politics are some of the robust societal elements that have shared their views about the issue of pledging allegiance. Politics and religion have experienced traditional debates on the subject of pledging allegiance to the flag in American societies. American citizens often recite their Pledge of Allegiance through several occasions and ceremonies to display patriotism and the love for their country. Some examples of essential ceremonies where the Americans recite their pledge include presidential inaugurations and at the beginning of school days. The oath further has an immense level of sentimental value to American citizens. However, the pledge also stems controversies as some people support it while others tend to criticize the pledge. The case Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow is a legal example of the debates that surround the controversial issues that revolve around reciting and pleading allegiance to the American flag. The essay uses the case Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow to expound on the debates, controversies and diverse views concerning pledging allegiance to the American flag. A Summary of the Salient Points of The Supreme Court Case Elk Grove Unified School District V. Newdow. The case stems from the incident when Michael Newdow's daughter attends a public school in California. The name of the school that Michael Newdow's daughter attends in California is the Elk Grove Unified School District. As an American culture where most of the schools recite the pledge, Elk Grove teachers start their school days as they lead their students to recite the allegiance pledge voluntarily. The pledge includes the words "under God" which the Congressional Act of 1954 added to the pledge. Newdow began a case in the district court in California where he argued that making leaners to recite or even listen to the pledge through some words such as "under God" violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment establishment clause. The district court dismissed Newdow's complaints. The court rejected the complaints on the grounds of lack of standing. The reasons as to why the lower courts dismissed the case was because the pledge was ruled constitutional. This decision never made Newdow happy, which made him to appeal for better judgements in pursuit of justice to the higher court levels. The decision of this lower courts seemed to incline to the favor of the schools to recite the pledge irrespective of the pledge affecting one’s religious matters, where religion is a paramount social aspect. The Levels of The Court Through Which the Case Evolved Before It Reached the Supreme Court. The case was initially given to the U.S. District Court, which is in the preliminary legal levels. In the court district level, the case was dismissed based on the ruling that the pledge was constitutional. Newdow further appealed and to the next legal level. The next level was the U.S. Court of Appeals, which is famously known as the Ninth Circuit. In this level, the case faced a three-judge panel, where the religious claims made a good point of view and the clause in the pledge "under God" seemed to affect the religious aspects of the claimant through the recitals or even if Newdow’s daughter did not recite the pledge, she obviously heard people reciting the pledge. In this level, the Ninth Circuit court ruled that the reciting the pledge with the words "under God" was a violation of the Establishment Clause. This ruling never a fraction of the public and the Congress, which led to an adverse reaction. Approximately one hundred and fifty Congress members went to the Capitol to recite the pledge. The pledge recital included the words under God, which enhanced the debates about political and religious impacts that the oath had. The last level was the US Supreme court level, where the court overturned the lower courts based on the ruling that the pledge was unconstitutional. The supreme court further added that Newdow could have standing to sue. The Decision of The Supreme Court in This Case in Brief The Supreme Court decision found that Michael Newdow lacked a convictive standing that for the suit. The Appeal Courts overturned the lower courts because they ruled the pledge was unconstitutional. The courts further added that Newdow could have standing to sue. The Supreme court reinstated the rulings made the lower courts. They ruled that Newdow did not have standing to sue based on the grounds that he was divorced and lacked his full daughter’s custody. The supreme court never ruled that the pledge was constitutional although three of the j...