Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The District Court and judge dismisses the case because of Newdows “lack for standing.” Because he and the mother of his daughter are divorced, and he does not have custody. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or Supreme Court then says that Newdow does have standing saying “it interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter.” The Circuit also ruled that Congress's 1954 act adding “Under God” to the pledge and the school districts requiring it to be said both violated the First Amendment. The mother and x wife of Newdow files a complaint to intervene and dismiss the case because she had the custody of the daughter and her religious views are different. The standing objective to the unconstitutional of the government affecting the child the Ninth Circuit Court held under the California Law Newdow retains the expose his religious views to his daughter even if the mother views the case differently.
Citation preview
By shelbie Martello and India Richey
Newdow Case
An atheist man, Michael Newdow (the plaintiff) has a little girl who attends a normal elementary (Elk grove Unified the defendant) school and every day just like we used to and still do on Mondays they say the pledge of Allegiance, this is not a requirement of the school to say.
Newdow believes that because the words “ Under God” are used even if his daughter chooses to not say the pledge it violates the First Amendment.
Background
The District Court and judge dismisses the case because of Newdows “lack for standing.” Because he and the mother of his daughter are divorced, and he does not have custody.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or Supreme Court then says that Newdow does have standing saying “it interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter.”
The Circuit also ruled that Congress's 1954 act adding “Under God” to the pledge and the school districts requiring it to be said both violated the First Amendment.
The mother and x wife of Newdow files a complaint to intervene and dismiss the case because she had the custody of the daughter and her religious views are different. The standing objective to the unconstitutional of the government affecting the child the Ninth Circuit Court held under the California Law Newdow retains the expose his religious views to his daughter even if the mother views the case differently.
Course Traced
Does Newdow have the standings to challenge a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead students in the saying the pledge?
Does the Policy violate the First Amendment?
Issue
Dissenting Opposing
Some believe that the Pledge is more like a prayer compared to just something that is in the Christian religion and no every one is a Christian. Not the opinion of everyone.
The Pledge is not a prayer and just because it says “Under God” its not forcing anyone to a certain religion. The pledge is to honor America.
The final decision made by the Supreme Court, 8 votes to 0, was that Newdow did not full custody of his daughter therefore he didn’t receive his standings.
The courts ordered the case as undecided and did not answer the constitutional argument.
All members of the Supreme Court wrote that it was constitutional to have the teachers led the children in the pledge.
Conclusion
People are still arguing over this issue today due today.
Some people believe that this was written to make peace with people and for everyone to come together under different beliefs, and how to keep a civil government.
Will it be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance?
Are Amendments contradicting throughout the government?
Impact
Elk grove unified school v. Newdow. Oyez. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_1624
Elk Grove Unified School Distict et ect.. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-1624
Supremecourt of the united States. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1624.ZS.html
Court narrows Newdow Pledge Case. ProCon.org
The goal of the pledge suit. Newdow. Beliefnet.com
Works Cited
