Editorial Roundup for Monday — January 09, 2006

• Patriot Act and the pledge of allegiance

Patriot Act and the pledge of allegiance

The Herald Bulletin, Anderson, Ind., Jan. 4:

President Bush has made it abundantly clear why some provisions of the Patriot Act should be modified or eliminated before being extended for an indefinite period.

His admission that he authorized spying wiretaps on telephone and Internet communications between American citizens and those in foreign countries, without bothering to get easily attainable warrants, shows how power can be abused, whether that power is real, implied or imagined.

What is the president’s excuse for violating a law and negating basic rights of U.S. citizens? The same as for everything else the administration does or seeks to do: Fighting terrorism.

The U.S. Constitution very carefully outlines the powers, duties and responsibilities of the president. Bush has been operating the executive branch far outside the narrow corridors delineated in that precious document.

To say the Patriot Act is perfect and should remain as originally adopted is to say Congress does not possess the intelligence or ability to improve it. We do not believe that. We do fear partisan bullheadedness will stand in the way of using that intelligence for the good of the country.

The Gainesville (Fla.) Sun, Jan. 3:

Otherwise patriotic Americans — some of them, anyhow — seem to have a blind spot about the Pledge of Allegiance.

On one hand, they think the pledge is a terrific affirmation of the love and devotion they feel for their country. On the other hand, they think that dissenters should be compelled to agree — even if it deprives them of a tiny bit of their “liberty and justice for all.”

We shouldn’t have to be arguing about this in 2006, but the issue still arises — usually egged on by opportunistic politicians — with a disturbing frequency. …

The latest incident is in Palm Beach County, where a 17-year-old junior at Boynton Beach High School wants the American Civil Liberties Union to help him press a grievance against the school administration. The student, Cameron Frazier, says his math teacher berated him publicly for refusing to stand and recite the pledge with his classmates. …

Although state law may support the school, long-settled case law is to the contrary.

Back in 1943, in the midst of World War II when patriotism was at a peak, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision declaring unconstitutional a West Virginia law requiring all public school students to salute the American flag and recite the pledge each day.

The law was challenged on religious grounds by some Jehovah’s Witnesses. …

We see nothing wrong with incorporating the Pledge of Allegiance into school routine. It serves as a useful reminder of the unique nature of our country and the freedoms we enjoy. But making the recitation mandatory — or subjecting dissenters to punishment or official ostracism — is a blow to those freedoms.

By the way, the issue in this case has nothing to do with the phrase “under God,” which was added to the pledge in the 1950s. That was when the U.S. was in the midst of its Cold War struggle against “godless communism” — and long after the 1943 decision written by Jackson. Litigation continues to swirl around that subject because of the implications of state-sponsored religion.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, send us an email.