A group blog to promote discussion, debate and insight into the history, particularly religious, of America's founding. Any observations, questions, or comments relating to the blog's theme are welcomed.
Does anyone know if the case is based on the establishment clause or the free-exercise clause?
Maybe I'm reading between the lines, but my impression is that the case is about discrimination ... something along the lines of the non-religious are being singled out as non-patriots by asking them to opt-out or recite the pledge's religious content?That would make this a 14th amendment case, correct (equal protection clause) ?
Neither, Ben. They lost the first time going after the establishment clause. Now they're attempting to use an equal protection clause in the state constitution.Considering this court created a right to gay marriage under the same clause, I'd say Newdow has a chance this time. "Equal protection" has had a great leveling effect on our institutions, making all things equal: if men can be women, irreligion is equal to religion.
Obviously I wrote my first while you were writing your second, Ben.
Re: "They lost the first time going after the establishment clause."The court found that Newdow had no standing, correct? So although Newdow lost his case based upon the establishment clause, we don't know the court's opinion with regards to the establishment clause argument.
I believe the article was referring to the Massachusetts case, not the one to which you're referring.
I'm not familiar with the case you are referring to. Did Newdow argue an establishment clause case against the Pledge+"Under God" in Massachusetts.
I asked too soon. I assume this the establishment clause case you are referring to? I'll have to read through it when I have time.
Post a Comment