Pledge debate hot topic at UNLV

Jennifer Knight

Friday, June 28, 2002 | 10:18 a.m.

As the nation waits for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, the issue is already being debated in college law and political science classes at UNLV.

The 2-1 opinion delivered Wednesday by Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin said that the phrase "under God" violates the separation of church and state. But Goodwin stayed his ruling until fellow members of the appeals court can reconsider the case. He gave no reason Thursday for the change.

Placing the opinion on hold didn't stop University of Nevada, Las Vegas law students from weighing in during a constitutional law class, Tom McAffee, a UNLV law professor, said.

"My students were certainly interested last night," McAffee said Thursday. "They weren't sure what to think about it. There were some divided beliefs that it was a little bit imposing on people to have students invoke the name of God."

Goodwin's decision will hold the case for an estimated 60 days before being reheard by the same three-judge panel. If that panel refuses to hear the case, a majority of the 23-member court will decide whether or not an 11-judge panel will hear it again, David Madden, a spokesman for the appeals court, said Thursday.

Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday the Justice Department will request a hearing by an 11-judge panel.

"The Justice Department will defend the ability of our nation's children to pledge allegiance to the American flag," he said.

McAffee, an expert in constitutional law, said that if the case makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court, it will not be affirmed.

Ted Jelen, chairman of UNLV's political science department, pointed out that the words "one nation under God" are not secular in nature.

"It sends a message to atheists, agnostics or anyone prescribing to other monotheistic traditions that if they don't invoke the name of God, they are not good Americans," Jelen said. "And the government is not in the business of doing that."

The case was filed by a Sacramento, Calif., man who did not feel his second-grade daughter should be forced to say the pledge. The case argued that the pledge should be restored to its original version. Before 1954, the words "under God" were not included in the pledge.

Despite school superintendents in Washoe and Clark counties announcing that they would continue to have students recite the pledge with the words "under God" included, that procedure change if the appeals court affirms its ruling.

"If the 9th Circuit Court comes down with an absolute decision where we are duty bound to follow, sure, we'll follow it," Tom Sargent, a spokesman for the Nevada Attorney General, said.

Since the ruling, the issue has been characterized as a "liberal" decision. But Goodwin, who voted for the ruling, was appointed in 1971 by President Richard M. Nixon. Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who made up the majority with Goodwin, was appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1980.

President Bush found Wednesday's ruling "ridiculous," and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., called it "just nuts."

Critics of the decision warned that it calls into question the use of "In God We Trust" on the nation's currency, the public singing of patriotic songs such as "God Bless America," and even the use of the phrase "So help me God" when judges and presidents are sworn into office. If the decision takes more than four months, UNLV professor Jay Bybee could be placed in the lottery system of judges who will hear the case.

The court has five appointees, including Bybee, awaiting confirmation by the Senate, Madden said.

Bybee is described by colleagues as a moderate conservative who is intelligent, thoughtful and very religious. Bybee's being confirmed in time and then chosen appears to be a long shot.

"I think he would (try to) reverse the appeal decision if he were on the panel," McAffee said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

archive