Pledge of Allegiance vs. Constitution?

[UnderseaLcpl]

For all practical purposes, the Pledge of Allegiance is not in contradiction with the United States Constitution for two main reasons.

1) It is not a criminal act to refuse to recite the pledge, nor is the pledge mandated anywhere outside some very specific state laws.

2) It requires only that one pledge allegiance to the ensign of the US and the Republic it represents. The remaining terms are descriptors, none of which indicates that by pledging allegiance to the US you are pledging allegiance to God; only that you are pledging allegiance to a nation that is under God. A nation governed by a constitution which allows no abridgement of your rightful freedom to start or choose or not choose a religion. Those are very different things.

Most of the opposition to the pledge comes from people who don't want any mention of God made anywhere, or who are of the (quite justified) assumption that the term refers to a Judeo-Christian God. In these cases, people aren't so much against the pledge itself as they are against supporting what they see as a meme to propagate beliefs they oppose. I suppose I can understand that. I've never been a big fan of the pledge myself, albeit for different reasons.

In any case, the pledge is not unconstitutional.

edit- "uh-oh, Frau's here"
Um... I'm on a horse!

[SteamWake]

The origins of the pledge.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur10.htm

[conus00]

I can see where you are coming from in case of The Pledge of Allegiance. From your standpoint and in layman's terms: you are not forced to take it and you or not punished if you do or do not.

But why are the words "under God" included?

Can it be amended so these words are "optional". Like in the Oath of Allegiance (I will have to take to become U.S. citizen)?
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

According to wikipedia:
8 C.F.R. 337.1 provides that the phrase "so help me God" is optional and that the words ‘on oath’ can be substituted with ‘and solemnly affirm’.

Why can't the Pledge of Alliance be modified in same fashion?

@SteamWake interesting article. I didn't know all that.

Interesting question. That it is asked by a current non-citizen, studying to become one, makes it all the more relevant.

It is this look from the outside which allows us to constantly have a re-look at ourselves. The best reason for immigration I can think of.

I don't know the answer because I'm too close to myself as a citizen.

Thank you for asking the question.

[conus00]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

Actually I kind of agree with you that, unless someone is being required to recite the pledge as "proof of loyalty" for some reason, it's prolly not unconstitutional for it to exist. Technically. I still dislike the idea of loyalty pledges in general, and the added "under God" doesn't help since it at least implies that there is some deity who is "over" the nation or its founding or it guiding principles.

Honestly they were still having us stand up to recite the pledge every morning in high school and I never recited it, simply because I did not like being told or expected to do so on demand. Nobody seemed to notice. Granted I still stood up, because I will do that much out of respect for certain things. I've always wondered though how much of a stink it might've caused had I just sat there and quietly gone about my business.

Furthermore, I think that Carthage should be destroyed.

My g/f was just curious what (rougly) year it was because she stopped saying pledge of allegiance while being still in elementary school and was not required to recite in high school? She went to high school in mid 80s.

[frau kaleun]

I was in high school from 1978-1982. I can remember them still doing it there but whether it was every year, I don't know. My senior year I was off-campus most of the day and I'm not sure I even went to "homeroom" which was when they did all the announcements and pledge over the PA system.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

edit- "uh-oh, Frau's here"
Um... I'm on a horse!

Actually I kind of agree with you that, unless someone is being required to recite the pledge as "proof of loyalty" for some reason, it's prolly not unconstitutional for it to exist. Technically. I still dislike the idea of loyalty pledges in general, and the added "under God" doesn't help since it at least implies that there is some deity who is "over" the nation or its founding or it guiding principles.

Honestly they were still having us stand up to recite the pledge every morning in high school and I never recited it, simply because I did not like being told or expected to do so on demand. Nobody seemed to notice. Granted I still stood up, because I will do that much out of respect for certain things. I've always wondered though how much of a stink it might've caused had I just sat there and quietly gone about my business.

Furthermore, I think that Carthage should be destroyed.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

Actually I kind of agree with you that, unless someone is being required to recite the pledge as "proof of loyalty" for some reason, it's prolly not unconstitutional for it to exist. Technically. I still dislike the idea of loyalty pledges in general, and the added "under God" doesn't help since it at least implies that there is some deity who is "over" the nation or its founding or it guiding principles.

We're agreed upon that. I only got on my horse to impress you

I was never a fan of the pledge in school, either. I used to make up funny words for it, or grumble my way through it, much the same way you did, and for the same reasons. Ironically, I had a completely opposite political ideology at the time from what I do now.

These days, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I've proudly stated the pledge many times in uniform, but the only oath that really stuck with me was to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Strange how those different sentiments could come from the same person.

Furthermore, I think that Carthage should be destroyed.

By men on horses, preferably.

[conus00]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Interesting question. That it is asked by a current non-citizen, studying to become one, makes it all the more relevant.

It is this look from the outside which allows us to constantly have a re-look at ourselves. The best reason for immigration I can think of.

I don't know the answer because I'm too close to myself as a citizen.

Thank you for asking the question.

You are welcome. One of the ways how we improve ourselves is being questioned by others. On different (but related subject) you should take a look at this: http://usgovinfo.about.com/blinstst.htm

It is the list of questions required for U.S. citizenship test. It might be little bit outdated but it will give you an idea. I believe that majority of U.S. citizens would flunk the test. My g/f (smart and born and raised American) didn't know the answers to approx 1/3 of the questions.

[Penguin]

While reading about the POA I was astonished that it was state law to recite it - at least in Florida . I always thought it would be voluntarily with most students saying it out of tradition, conviction and/or peer pressure.

While I want to leave the constitutional discussion to the Americans, reading the oath of allegiance raises a new question:
Why does it explicitly mention a prince? Wouldn't he already be covered by potentate or sovereignty? Or did the US had some beef with a prince at the time the oath was introduced?

Why does it explicitly mention a prince?

Was there a prince named flag, and the republic it stands for?

Ultimately it is an oath to a republic.

[Takeda Shingen]

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Was there a prince named flag, and the republic it stands for?

Ultimately it is an oath to a republic.

I was asking about the oath of allegiance which the OP cited in post #7

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by Penguin

While I want to leave the constitutional discussion to the Americans, reading the oath of allegiance raises a new question:
Why does it explicitly mention a prince? Wouldn't he already be covered by potentate or sovereignty? Or did the US had some beef with a prince at the time the oath was introduced?

The "oath of allegiance" quoted above and the "pledge of allegiance" to the flag are two different things.

The former is taken by someone who is not a citizen of the US, but is about to become one. In order to be sworn in as a US citizen, he/she must renounce all prior claims of citizenship or subjecthood to any foreign government, power, or ruler. Some foreign nationals are subjects of a monarch who is considered the head of state in their country of origin.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Most of the opposition to the pledge comes from people who don't want any mention of God made anywhere, or who are of the (quite justified) assumption that the term refers to a Judeo-Christian God.

First of all, I didn't read the two points you made, so if what I say next contradicts what you have stated in them, just everyone ignore my post. (I'm a "tad" drunk, so my attention span is pretty much zero)

But the quoted text was a flashing, big neon sign to me. What are you trying to say? Atheists aren't against the Judeo-Christian god, but against an higher power or deity. Which includes ALL gods.

You americans like to use the word "freedom", does it not apply also to the religion? The line in the PoA clearly contradicts (yeh, I've learned a new word, me>awesomeness) the freedom of believing whatever deity, object, slump of piss you want.

And I don't even get why it has to be there, I mean, let's get real, America isn't exactly the model student in the school of God. Yes, there are those who believe and then there's those who "believe" and change the rules that gets one to heaven when there's need to, wtf is that about? Is that not God's law? One can't just change it when it contradicts (Woot, that's a strike!) to something he/she want's to do but God says NO.

Of course, this happens all over the world, not just america, so don't take this as a attack on america or something like that (or I call you an douchenozzle [giggity giggity for those who remember that ]).

Right... I think that's all.. I go back to what I was doing.

PS. Damn, I think that's my all time longest post.

PPS. this has been bothering me, is it PPS or PSS. My brother uses PSS, but is it not PPS, as in post-post-scriptum or someting?

PPPS. If someone knows the girl in my sig, PM me, she is HOT!