A Nation of Laws
June 16th, 2004 | by Craig |I’m no lawyer, but I know one or two, and I think they’ll agree with me on this.
The Guess-At-It editorial board (among other outlets) is complaining that the Supreme Court handily used the concept of “standing” to avoid ruling on the larger issue.
Well, sorry, gang, but this is a nation of laws, and the concept of having standing to file a suit is a big one. A law dummy such as myself even understands this notion, which is more than you can say for the 9th Circuit Court.
Had the Supremes ruled on the constitutionality of the case, it would have set a very dangerous precedent in giving Michael Newdow the standing to file suit on behalf of a minor who is not even in his custody.
Citing that precedent, the door would be open to the professionally offended litigators everywhere to file suits on behalf of people they have never met, and who wouldn’t have anything to gain (or lose) depending on the outcome of the suit.
The issue isn’t dead, and I suspect that someday, the Supremes will rule on it, but for now, this is definitely the correct decision. You can’t ignore following the letter of the law, just because the suit matter has some far-reaching implications.
(Attorneys may feel free to correct my thinking on this, if I am wrong.)
22 Responses to “A Nation of Laws”
By jr on Jun 16, 2004 | Reply
Craig,as you know I am an attorney (though not in practice) and you are “right on” with regard to standing. The determination of legal rights and interests is greatly enhanced when real, rather than hypothetical, interests are at stake. Mr. Newdow is not the legal guardian of his child, whose legal interest he asserts in this litigation. The actual legal guardian, the mother, is opposed to his crusade and to his position in re: the pledge. His daughter has no independent view of the issue–how could she–and just seems to provide a convenient pretext for Mr. Newdow’s crusade–he’s considering going after “In God We Trust” on the coinage next.
By Rita on Jun 16, 2004 | Reply
You are 100% correct. It would’ve also overturned the long-standing precedent that only states have the right to regulate domestic relations issues….a very bad thing.
By David Crisp on Jun 16, 2004 | Reply
I dunno, Craig, I didn’t see as a complaint so much as a statement of how the issue ought ultimately to be decided. I agree with you on standing, but I’m not yet willing to agree with The Gazette on the issue. I think that if we are going to inflict pledges on schoolchildren then they ought to mean something more than ceremonial blather. And if the pledge is something more than ceremonial blather, then it’s probably unconstitutional.
By Jim - Parkway Rest Stop on Jun 16, 2004 | Reply
Absolutely correct on the issue of standing, which is being reported by some media as a “technicality” on which the decision was based. As you point out, the concept of requiring a litigant to have standing is fundamental to our system and the lack of standing is hardly a “technality.”
By mike on Jun 16, 2004 | Reply
I’m just a dumb ole barber, but I have to agree with Craig on this one…in the meantime I think I will continue to support the pledge as being just that a pledge to America and nothing more!
By Chad on Jun 16, 2004 | Reply
I’m in agreement with Newdow, and I still think that he needed standing. I imagine that the Supremes will ultimately smack down any anti “In God We Trust” and “One Nation Under God” they come across, but they got it right on this one.
By Trench on Jun 16, 2004 | Reply
That’s all well and good Chad but Newdow’s claim was that the pledge was damaging his daughter who as it turns out is a Christian and enjoys the pledge and Newdow has little to no custody of his daughter. That makes his argument moot.
By david on Jun 16, 2004 | Reply
Hm. I understand, somewhat, the argument about “standing” — but this is hardly a case of someone filing a lawsuit on behalf of a stranger (”…file suits on behalf of people they have never met”); it is his DAUGHTER - his child. Granted, his wife is the custodial parent, but it is still HIS CHILD.
By Eric Coobs on Jun 16, 2004 | Reply
The First Amendment to the Constitution wasn’t to protect government from religion.
The First Amendment was clearly understood and explained by the man who wrote it, and the man who first applied it as law. Fisher Ames wrote the First Amendment. He also wrote that the bible should always remain the principle text book in America’s classrooms. John Jay, original Chief-Justice U.S. Supreme Court, said it is the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to help and encourage religion.
I’ll tell you guys the same thing I tell the Jehovah’s Witnesses, if you don’t want to be a part of America, why don’t you find someplace better to live.
By Craig on Jun 16, 2004 | Reply
David–
It doesn’t matter that she was his daughter, he had given up (or been stripped of) his custodial rights.
Only a person with custodial rights (i.e., standing) can sue on the behalf of a minor. (At this point, I will again call on all attorneys to correct me if I’m wrong.) Say, for example, that my daughter is injured tomorrow. Both my wife and I can bring suit on her behalf. Since we are custodial parents, we both have standing in the case. Now, if we were divorced, and I had signed away my custodial rights, only my Spousal Unit™ could bring suit, since I have no custodial interest.
What happened here, as Rita mentioned, is that SCOTUS enforced “standing” as well as affirming that custodial disputes rightly belong to the states, not the Feds.
This issue, really, should have been caught by at least the 9th circuit, before it even made it to SCOTUS.
By Jim - Parkway Rest Stop on Jun 17, 2004 | Reply
Right again, Craig.
By Chad on Jun 17, 2004 | Reply
Eric, please don’t take this the wrong way. You can kiss my hairy white Semper Fidelis 100% Grade A United States Marine Corps ass before you ever tell me or insinuate that I should live someplace other than a country that I saw combat for, my father saw combat for, my uncle saw combat for, my cousin saw combat for, my grandfathers saw combat for and my great-grandfathers saw combat for (not to mention my dear old senior citizen Department of the Army civilian Mom, who just may yet get sent to Iraq) just because I believe something different than you.
Trench, if it were my daughter and they were requiring her to pledge allegiance to something that I didn’t believe in, I’d be upset too. Let me give you a for instance.
For instance, I know this will never happen (at least not in the forseeable future), but just for the sake of argument let’s suppose that there was no pledge of allegiance, and someone got the idea to make one. Instead of pledging allegiance to Old Glory, the person with this bright idea was much more impressed by the blue and white standard of the UN.
Do I want my kid pledging allegiance to the flag of the UN? Do you? I don’t see this question as terribly different than Mr. Newdow, who does not believe that we are “one nation under God”, just “one nation”.
By Rita on Jun 17, 2004 | Reply
David you’re mistaken. These people were never married. And being related doesn’t give you standing. There has to be a specific legal relationship, which this ‘father’ has never had because he’s never had any kind of legal custody.
By Eric Coobs on Jun 17, 2004 | Reply
Well Chad, with your background, why would you NOT want to say the pledge?
By Eric Coobs on Jun 17, 2004 | Reply
To follow up on my own post - the whole point I’m trying to make is that the Pledge of Allegiance isn’t about state-sanctioned religion, of about your personal philosophical beliefs, it’s about being an American. And if somebody truly hates being an American, I think they should make themself happier by finding a BETTER country to live in.
By David Crisp on Jun 17, 2004 | Reply
Eric, The whole idea of America is that nobody can tell you what to say or believe. People who have a problem with that are the ones who should leave.
By Chad on Jun 17, 2004 | Reply
Gotta agree with David.
Eric’s rhetoric smacks of the fifties-era Communist witch hunts that essentially put “under God” in the pledge to begin with.
By Eric Coobs on Jun 17, 2004 | Reply
People who believe in saying the Pledge of Allegiance are un-American?
I’m not the sharpest pencil in the box, but please explain it to me.
By Craig on Jun 18, 2004 | Reply
Eric–
David is saying that if you think people should be forced to recite the pledge, then that is un-American.
I guess I’ve always felt that if you don’t believe the “under God” part, no one is forcing you to say it. Years ago, I just left the words out, and I’ve lived to tell the tail.
Some people would be even more apoplectic to hear of another variation that is making the rounds, adding the words “born and unborn” after the phrase, “with liberty and justice for all.”
By David Crisp on Jun 18, 2004 | Reply
Craig, I’m with you. I’ve omitted “under God” since elementary school. In my fundamentalist church, I was taught to believe it was blasphemy. Interesting that to me the phrase always was understood as a sign of the corruption of the world. Now omitting it is seen that way. Of course, the Supreme Court has ruled that no one can be forced to say the pledge. But Newdow argues, with some merit, that imposing it on schoolchildren amounts to government coercion.
By Eric Coobs on Jun 20, 2004 | Reply
I agree that nobody can, or should be forced to say it.
I also believe that an American SHOULD say it.
And if a parade comes by, with the flag, and you don’t take your hat off, I’ll be the one who nudges you to remind you.
Rhetoric? Maybe. But it’s very, very good rhetoric.
I was at Colorado Springs yesterday morning, dropping off my oldest Daughter at the Cadet Field House at the Air Force Academy, and seeing the flag still at half mast, and all those smart kids coming in from all over the country restored my belief that patriotism isn’t dead.
In the news all we hear about is the worst in our kids, but after seeing all those kids, with a sparkle in their eye, I think we’re in good hands. And I’ll bet that each & every one of them recited the Pledge of Allegiance this morning.
By David Crisp on Jun 20, 2004 | Reply
Isn’t it odd, though, that if the Pledge is so all-fired important, nobody ever says it except in school, at meetings of public bodies (rarely attended by the public) and at political gatherings? Is there a parent anywhere in the country who makes the kids say the Pledge before they go to school? Or on weekends? Why leave it up to schools to do what scarcely anybody seems to think is important enough to do anywhere else? Just wondering.