Showing posts with label West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. Show all posts
Showing posts with label West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. Show all posts

Thursday, September 5, 2013

West Virginia BOE v. Barnette

In a concurring opinion via wikipedia:
"Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self-interest," wrote Black and Douglas in a concurring opinion. "Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions."

Update: Full paragraph rather than wiki synopsis.

Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self-interest. Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions. These laws must, to be consistent with the First Amendment, permit the widest toleration of conflicting viewpoints consistent with a society of free men. 


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0319_0624_ZC.html

Sunday, September 30, 2007

Colorado Students walk out at pledge...

Including the words "Under God" is clearly giving recognition to a monotheistic deity who is "above", this isn't permitted it is clearly a law "respecting an establishment of religion" and kudos to Michael Newdow in this respect.

Hell yeah. Some Colorado students finally take a stand.. That pledge is completely unconstitutional and having worked as a substitute teacher in the past I can attest to the fact that it's largely ignored and when it isn't it's just annoying. Most of the students don't even stand when it is even read, and when they do they don't bother to say the thing. And frankly, since nobody seems to care, it's unconstitutional to make them care (unconstitutional in a different way).

I believe that because West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette was decided on free speech grounds (the state has no right to compel speech) nobody has to recite the Pledge. And, as nobody is really upsetting class by nobody doing anything (and as standing up counts as speech)... I don't think students can be compelled to care if they don't and nobody minds that they don't.

In the Colorado case, I love the suggestion of holding it in the auditorium during lunch. I could think of nothing more optional or more useless.