Document Type
Response or Comment
Publication Date
2004
Publication Information
5 Engage 141 (2004).
Abstract
Although saving the Pledge from a declaration of unconstitutionality is an end worth our prayers, I think that O’Connor’s effort to portray it as “ceremonial deism” fails. “Under God” endorses religion, and the Court should address the issue on that basis. If the phrase comports with the Constitution – as I think it does – it is because the Constitution does not prohibit governmental affirmations that “God” – a greater-than-human source of meaning and value – exists.
Recommended Citation
Gerard V. Bradley & Paul J. Griffiths,
Reflections on Newdow,
5 Engage 141 (2004)..
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/1750
Comments
From the Editor's Note:
On March 16, 2004, the Federalist Society’s Religious Liberties Practice Group sponsored a program on the “Pledge Case,” Elk Grove v. Newdow, which was then pending before the United States Supreme Court.
We are pleased to print reactions to the Supreme Court’s ruling authored by two of the March 16th event’s panelists, Prof. Gerard V. Bradley of Notre Dame Law School, and Prof. Paul J. Griffiths of the University of Illinois at Chicago. It is likely that there will be another challenge to the Pledge, and the Federalist Society is pleased to continue discussion on this important issue.