Congressional timewasting

[unixronin]

So, once again, the issue of the Pledge of Allegiance is in the news, as Congress attempts to tell the Supreme Court that they are forbidden from hearing any case on the Pledge of Allegiance.  (I wish them good luck with it, as I suspect if they do manage to get the bill past the Senate as well and signed into law by the President, the very first time the issue comes up the Supreme Court will simply rule the bill unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress lacks the authority to limit the Supreme Court's Constitutional authority to judge the law.)

Anyway, it seems to me the whole issue is rather silly.  To forbid the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge is apparently offensive to many Christians.  To mandate the inclusion of the same words can justifiably be taken as offensive to Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans, Hindus, Shintoists, atheists, followers of Wakantanka, etc, etc, etc.  Either can be considered religious discrimination.  Strict Muslims probably cannot take the Pledge with "under God" included without violating the religious strictures of Islam, which require them to affirm that there is no god but Allah.  (Unfortunately, in the current climate, a lot of idiots will probably think that's a good and sufficient reason for having them there.)

Well, come ON, people!  What's the big problem here?  Simply declare those two words OPTIONAL.  Declare the Pledge equally valid with or without them, and forbid anyone (under the religious-freedom clause) from compelling anyone else to either include them or omit them.  This discriminates against nobody, and ought to keep everyone happy -- except, of course, for the control-freak thought-police types who think they have a divine mandate to tell everyone else how to live their lives, and it'll show them up publicly for what they are.

Discuss.

---

Update:  tquid correctly points out that followers of some religions are forbidden from taking any such oath at all.  While not an insignificant point, and one that I had missed, this has more to do with the issue of whether anyone should be able to refuse the Pledge for religious reasons (which I propose that the First Amendment says they should), than with the presence or absence of specific words therein.  If religious strictures forbid you from taking the pledge at all, its wording is somewhat moot.

Comments

[tquid.livejournal.com]

At least a few religions forbid the taking of any oath like the Pledge of Allegiance, "under God" or not. In fact, the case law records that it was a couple of Seventh Day Adventists who helped spur the original lawsuit along. They refused to stand for the Pledge; they were tarred and feathered, and as a consequence, died.

Although the "under God" bit certainly caused me special consternation when I was in high school, I think I would still have a problem even without that, because of my feelings then (and now) about allegiance to a country that is conspicuously failing to meet up with my ideals. Now of course, we can argue about pledging allegiance to the flag as being representative exactly of those ideals for the country that I would like to see. Regardless, I would want those ideals to include others' right to dissent even for trivial and stupid reasons.

Second try, as I garbled the last paragraph first time out...

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I wasn't aware that some religions forbade secular oaths of allegiance entirely. Thanks for the heads-up (so noted as an amendment).

Moving on to the larger issue of whether anyone should be able to be compelled to take the Pledge at all, I'm fairly sure it could be successfully argued that the religious-freedom clause should allow for the exemption of any citizen from reciting the Pledge if doing so would conflict with their religion. Likewise, I believe the free-speech provisions of the First Amendment should protect any citizen's right to refuse to recite or stand for the Pledge as a gesture of dissent. Any society that wishes to remain healthy MUST allow its citizens the right and freedom to peacefully dissent. Not to do so is folly, as it will only drive dissent underground, and is almost certainly harmful to the long-term health of the society (and, for that matter, is strongly indicative of grave health problems already present in the society).

What's somewhat more of a gray area is the recitation of the Pledge as part of the process of attaining citizenship. I think it's fairly clear that someone wishing to become a citizen should be able to refuse to take the Pledge. However, the reason or reasons for that refusal should probably be given, and depending on the reason(s) cited, I can also see that it might be entirely reasonable to refuse to grant citizenship in return. This would probably have to be decided by the judge administering the oath, on a case-by-case basis. If a would-be citizen says, "I badly want to become a citizen and do my part for America, but my religion forbids me to swear allegiance to any power but my God," then it is most likely justifiable to grant citizenship and allow a dispensation to omit the Pledge on religious grounds.

On the other hand, if an applicant for citizenship says "I want US citizenship, but I refuse to pledge allegiance to a corrupt nation of capitalist running-dog zionists which must be brought down in blood and fire as an example to the world," then the only appropriate response is "Don't let the border hit your ass on your way out."

Re: Second try, as I garbled the last paragraph first time out...

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

One could make a case under the 14th Amendment that forcing one to say the Pledge in order to become a citizen is a violation of Equal Protection.... after all, folks as are born here don't have to say it....

Re: Second try, as I garbled the last paragraph first time out...

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That's potentially a valid point too. However, it could probably be argued that it's not applicable, since folks born here also do not have to apply for citizenship. Since this is an issue of completing an administrative process, rather than one of being tried in the legal system or one of denial of rights, I rather suspect that it falls outside the purview of the equal-protection clause.

Re: Second try, as I garbled the last paragraph first time out...

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Nope. Equal protection applies to civil as well as criminal law.

Re: Second try, as I garbled the last paragraph first time out...

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I think you missed my point. It's not a question of civil or criminal law. What exactly is someone being protected from in the process of applying for citizenship?

We have already established that non-citizens are required to undergo an application process if they wish to obtain US citizenship. The only application I can see here of the equal protection clause is to argue that since natural-born citizens to not have to apply for citizenship, immigrants wishing to become citizens should not need to do so either. If that were the case, anyone could become a US citizen merely by asking for it, and (for one absurd example) the entire Muslim world could demand US citizenship, register to vote absentee, and write in Osama bin Laden for President.
Needless to say, this state of affairs would be somewhat ridiculous. Any nation must be allowed to control who it permits to become citizens. Ergo, equal protection cannot reasonably be used to eliminate the administrative process required by the United States for the granting of citizenship.

Once we establish that, it is up to the United States itself to define the details of that administrative process. Unless that process is defined to contain openly discriminatory measures such as requiring that the entire process be conducted only in English, with no translation assistance provided or permitted, or requiring all applicants to sign an affidavit stating that all Frenchmen are cheese-eating surrender-monkeys -- in other words, so long as the details and requirements of the application process are the same for all applicants -- then the equal protection clause has no say over what steps are and are not included within that process. The only thing the equal protection clause can say with regard to the process of application for citizenship is that all applicants must be treated equally by the process.

If the United States chooses to say that the Pledge of Allegiance is a required part of that process, then the equal protection clause cannot be used to say that it should not, provided it is required of all applicants. If an exemption for the Pledge is provided for those who are unable to recite it due to religious strictures, then the equal protection clause can do nothing more than require that the exemption be offered to all applicants having relevant religious strictures. It cannot be used to say that applicants for citizenship may not be required to recite the Pledge to become a citizen on the grounds that natural-born citizens who acquire their citizenship automatically at birth are not required to recite the Pledge at birth. If it could, one could fairly argue that equal protection could be used to require that immigrants applying for naturalization as citizens should have to be re-born in the US, because after all, all the natural-born citizens in the US had to be born here to get their citizenship.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Do you mean literally tarred and feathered? I can't find any references for that online. (I'm not specifically doubting it, I'm just surprised. I thought tar and feather went out of style before the pledge came into usage.)

-Ogre

[radarrider.livejournal.com]

Just as an administrative note, the part of the Constitution which I'm sure is being cited as authorizing the Congress to pass this sort of legislation is Article III, Section 2 which reads, in part:

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

It's the last sentence that's the key. As you noted, though, the Supreme Court does (I would expect) get to say whether or not the legislation passes Constitutional muster.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Heck, in the strictest sense, Christians are prohibited from saying "under God" in the pledge. "Thou shalt not use God's name for vain purposes." Glorifying a country is certainly a vain use for the name of God.

-Ogre

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Excellent point. Of course, I'm sure Shrubya and his buddies would be among the first to tell you "Ah, yes, but this is America, and that makes it different."

An even MORE radical idea

[bbwoof.livejournal.com]

The last time I recited the Pledge of Allegiance was in grade school. I was not of legal age to take such an Oath, and as such, it was not binding upon me.

When I became a soldier (voluntarily, mind you!) I took an Oath, but it was not the Pledge of Allegiance. No one has ever asked me to affirm my citizenship by taking the Pledge of Allegiance.

Why don't we simply do away with the stupid thing altogether? It is an empty ritual, used in schools in lieu of real training in civics.

I'm not sure even what the Pledge means anymore. Does it ask it's reciter to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth? Certainly not. To a Republic, symbolized by that cloth? Probably, but the concept of "republic" has gotten pretty murky in the USA lately. To the ideal of an indivisible nation? Doubtful; that's a hangover from the American Civil War. To the ideal of "liberty and justice for all"? If so, then it's not pledging allegiance to the United States of America, where "justice" has become an economic concept, rather than an ideal.

IMNSHO, real allegiance is not owed to the Flag, nor even to the Republic, but rather to the Constitution of the United States, which forms our social contract. (Oaths of office in the USA, from President on down, are taken "to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.") I don't see the word "Constitution" anywhere in the Pledge, so what does it matter to me?

Re: An even MORE radical idea

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Oaths of office in the USA, from President on down, are taken "to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Indeed. I've often wondered whether they take their oaths with their fingers crossed behind their backs, parrot the words of the oath as a meaningless ritual without having the slightest intention of actually following them, or are simply so ignorant of the Constitution that they're incapable of understanding when they're writing legislation that's in conflict with it.

You're right, the Pledge is for the most part purely symbolic. And in some regards, that itself is an even stronger argument for stopping the silly wrangling over the wording. If we're going to have a symbolic gesture with no real meaning, which we go ahead and force people to recite anyway, we could at least try not to step all over their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) in the process, unless we're going to officially throw out the freedom-of-religion clause of the First Amendment.

I agree, though, the more sensible step is to just drop it altogether. I mean, what, some foreign spy is going to break down and confess because he can't bring himself to lie when asked to recite a Pledge that doesn't mean a damned thing to him? Give me a break. But .... baby steps, baby steps. Softly softly, catchee monkey.