OPINION & EDITORIAL
Judicial activism continues to damage constitutional rights
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Matt Modell:
- Taking responsibility for your decisions (April 24, 2003)
- An honorable and just battle (November 20, 2003)
- Fixing the problems of ASM (November 25, 2003)
- The key word is 'illegal' (December 4, 2003)
- A fond farewell to UW (December 11, 2003)
Related Stories:
- Pledge protection undermines court (September 30, 2004)
- Judges need diverse résumés (February 13, 2007)
- To what do we Pledge Allegiance? (March 13, 2003)
- To what do we pledge allegiance? (March 13, 2003)
- "Commanding" governance (October 19, 2004)
by Matt Modell
Thursday, September 4, 2003
“God save the United States and this Honorable Court!” calls out the U.S. Supreme Court Marshal at the beginning of every Supreme Court session. The Pledge of Allegiance gives a brief mention of God. “In God We Trust,” says the dollar bill in your pocket. The Ten Commandments say you should have only one God, as well as introducing other novel ideas like, “thou shalt not kill,” commit adultery or steal.
These references to God are secular in nature. They do not require individuals to believe in any particular god or religion. The two references that have caused the most controversy, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom and having the Ten Commandments displayed in a courtroom hallway, should be two of the least controversial.
The Pledge of Allegiance is not forced on any student within a classroom; it has rightfully and always will remain optional. Just as in Alabama (and in Washington, D.C., at the U.S. Supreme Court building) looking at or even walking past the Ten Commandments is optional.
The historically activist and most commonly overturned 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals missed an important point when ruling the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. The District judge and 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals missed the same point — the First Amendment applies to everyone equally. The First Amendment gives everyone the freedom of expression and the right to choose to believe in any religion or no religion. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from imposing religion on any individual. The optional reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of class each morning may give students who recite the pledge a special feeling of patriotism, but it certainly does not impose or even endorse religion. Equally, in Alabama permitting citizens to view the Ten Commandments in a state building does not force individuals to believe in or obey its message (people must obey the law, which is what the courts are supposed to be ruling on).
Both courts, particularly the court ruling on the Alabama case, neglected the 10th Amendment, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
In Alabama, the word “God” is found several times, notably in the preamble of its 1901 state constitution where “Almighty God” is invoked in the establishment of its constitution.
Yet, just as it is invoked in the establishing of the constitution, Section 3 explicitly gives every person the right of religious freedom. It states that “no religion shall be established by law … no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination or mode of worship … no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship … and that the civil rights, privileges and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.”
Alabamans are religious people, but their laws do not require a belief in God. Their laws merely allow religion to be practiced and permit displays with some of those beliefs that most citizens of the state believe. This includes allowing displays in public areas provided no one is forced into looking at or even walking past such a display.
Justice Moore was correct that the federal court overstepped its
bounds in telling Alabama what it can display in a state building
when the display does not interfere with any individual’s rights.
Article X is explicit, and this right should be delegated to the
state and the people. In Alabama, their position is quite
clear.
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law
establishing a religion or prohibiting the exercise of any
religion. The fact remains we are, “One nation, under god,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” This freedom needs
to be protected, and this protection extends not only to those who
do not believe in a God, but also to those of us who do.
Matt Modell (mmodell@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in journalism and political science.
