I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag: Facts of the Case

I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
Student:
Professor:
Course title:
Date:
Introduction
America has a loyalty pledge which is recited in state functions and other official functions in institutions of learning. The loyalty pledge affirms allegiance to the American republic and the American flag. The pledge was first enacted in 1922 but it would later be amended 30 years on to include the phrase ‘under God’. Although the pledge of allegiance has become part of the American society over the years, controversy has arisen on multiple occasions on the necessity and importance of reciting the pledge. Although, there are a lot of sentiments associated to the pledge by Americans, others have begun to question its entire relevance. In Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, the Supreme Court was faced with the question of deciding whether the requirement to recite the pledge was unconstitutional. Further, the court sought to establish whether the phrase ‘under God’ was unconstitutional by any means. This paper has looked at the American Allegiance Pledge through the lens of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow.
Facts of the Case
The board of Elk Grove Unified School, a learning institution in California had given mandatory requirements for all schools attending elementary classes to recite on a daily basis the Pledge of Allegiance. One of the students in the elementary school was young girl whose father Newdow was an atheist. Due to his religious affiliation, Newdow had a problem with the inclusion of the phrase ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance. According to Newdow, having that phrase in the pledge and requiring the students to recite it on a daily basis was form of indoctrination meant to lure persons such as his daughter into believing in God (Dell, 2013). He further argued that owing to the fact that the small kids in elementary school were too young to make any decisions on their own, the recital of the pledge was forced on them, thereby violating their constitutional right to freedom of speech and thoughts (Westheimer, 2013). Newdow argued that the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause were both violated by this requirement. As such, he filed a suit in California challenging the legality and constitutionality of the phrase ‘under God’ in the pledge. However, the court found that the words contained in the phrase did not in way offend or violate the constitution and hence dismissed the suit. However this would be the only a tip of the iceberg as the case opened a Pandora’s Box that generated a heated public debate. What followed was an appeal as the petitioner felt that the first court had erred in judgment.
Upon the appeal, it was decided at the Ninth Circuit that indeed that there was improper evaluation of all evidence presented by the trial court. The court noted that every parent has a right and is justified to give directions regarding the direction in which the religious education of the child takes. As such, children from families with certain religious affiliations should...