Forcing Americans To Take An Oath Of Loyalty To The United States Is Constitutional
The American Civil Liberties Union is at it again in Florida. This time they have decided to champion the case of a high school junior who was forced to stand for the pledge of allegiance. He claims the teacher berated and ridiculed him for his refusal. The law that is being challenge requires all students to stand and recite the pledge. It allows the child’s parent to sign a waver form that can exempt them from reciting the pledge but they still have to stand.
The ACLU claimed the student said "Patriotism is more than going along with everybody else and just saluting a flag. It's about things like supporting our troops during the holidays and helping hurricane victims." Contrary to the ACLU's view a political act of rebellion does not grant you immunity to the law under the Constitution. If it did so then you could speed and not be ticketed, or hold up someone and not go to jail, as long as you claimed you disagreed with the law. The question is if the law was put into place for a good reason. The Constitution requires Judges to take an oath to uphold the Constitution which corresponds with saying the pledge of allegiance. A marriage oath is proven to instill more faithfulness to ones significant other than just cohabitating.
I do see to legitimate objections the first is religion as some religions would hold saying the pledge was making a promise while others would hold the flag as being an idol. The second is emancipation. Minors are emancipated by law as soon as they turn 18 and no longer need a parents permissions. Other minors are emancipated by judges or by marriage. I see no evidence that the student in this situation meets any of those qualifications.
The ACLU states "Our Legislature should have wiped this law off the books," and "It constitutes bad advice." This shows more the attitude of the ACLU toward loyalty to the United States than anything else. It sure does not show a knowledge of Constitutional law.
I do have one final point to make though, which is that an oath made under duress is not legally binding.
The ACLU claimed the student said "Patriotism is more than going along with everybody else and just saluting a flag. It's about things like supporting our troops during the holidays and helping hurricane victims." Contrary to the ACLU's view a political act of rebellion does not grant you immunity to the law under the Constitution. If it did so then you could speed and not be ticketed, or hold up someone and not go to jail, as long as you claimed you disagreed with the law. The question is if the law was put into place for a good reason. The Constitution requires Judges to take an oath to uphold the Constitution which corresponds with saying the pledge of allegiance. A marriage oath is proven to instill more faithfulness to ones significant other than just cohabitating.
I do see to legitimate objections the first is religion as some religions would hold saying the pledge was making a promise while others would hold the flag as being an idol. The second is emancipation. Minors are emancipated by law as soon as they turn 18 and no longer need a parents permissions. Other minors are emancipated by judges or by marriage. I see no evidence that the student in this situation meets any of those qualifications.
The ACLU states "Our Legislature should have wiped this law off the books," and "It constitutes bad advice." This shows more the attitude of the ACLU toward loyalty to the United States than anything else. It sure does not show a knowledge of Constitutional law.
I do have one final point to make though, which is that an oath made under duress is not legally binding.
posted by Kerwin | 8:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home