Loading...
CC - Item 3C - Resolution No. 2002-36 Supporting U.S Attorney General Ashcroft's Request For Rehearing Of The newdow Case Regarding The Pledge Of Allegiance To The American Flagy TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL FROM: BILL CRQkz CITY MANAGER DATE: AUGUST 13, 2002 RE: RESOLUTION NO. 2002-36- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA SUPPORTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT'S REQUEST FOR A REHEARING OF THE NEWDOW CASE REGARDING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE AMERICAN FLAG On June 26, 2002, three judges for the Ninth Circuit United States (Court of Appeal held that 1) the 1954 federal statute adding the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, and 2) the subject school district policy and practice of teacher-led 'recitation of the Pledge, with the added words included, violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This decision was the result of their ruling on Newdow v. U.S. Congress, et al. After this judgement was issued, U.S. Attorney John Ashcroft stated that the Justice Department would "defend the ability of our nation's children to pledge allegiance to the American flag," and requested a rehearing by the full Ninth Circuit i of the case: On June 27, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered that the judgment in the case Newdow v. U.S. Congress be stayed until the resolution of any petitions for rehearing by the full Ninth Circuit. i The City Council is concerned that the Newdow ruling could enco I pass a broader rule which would preclude the City Council's ability to open its sessions with the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag which is a traditional practice at the opening of the City Council meetings and City events. By adopting this resolution, the City Council is expressing it's strong interest in preserving the Pledge of Allegiance as it was amended in 1954. , I j AUG 13 2002 ITEM No. % C Recommendation i i It is recommended that the Council adopt Resolution No. 2002-36. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA SUPPORTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT'S REQUEST FOR A REHEARING OF THE NEWDOW CASE REGARDING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE AMERICAN FLAG WHEREAS, the Pledge of Allegiance was first codified on June 22, 1942 as "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"; and WHEREAS, Congress amended the Pledge to add the words "under God" after the word "Nation" on June 14, 1954 (referred to as the "1954 Act"); and WHEREAS, the Pledge of Allegiance is currently codified under 4 U.S.C. Section 4 as "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United State of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"; and WHEREAS, in Newdow v U.S. Congress et al. (2002) 292 F.3d 597, three judges of the Ninth Circuit United States Court of Appeal held on June 26, 2002 that (1) the 1954 federal statute adding the words "under God" to the Pledge of 'Allegiance, and (2) the subject school district policy and practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, with the added words included, violate the Establishment Clause; and WHEREAS, after the judgment above, the United State's Department of Justice issued a statement of the United States Attorney General John Ashcroft that the Justice. Department would "defend the ability of our nation's children to'pledge allegiance to the American flag", and requests a rehearing by the full Ninth Circuit of the case; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered that the judgment in the case Newdow v U.S. Congress, et al. be stayed pending the resolution of any petitions for rehearing en banc of the full Ninth Circuit and the Clerk of Court was also directed to stay the mandate; and WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned that the Newdow ruling could encompass a broader rule which would preclude the City Council's ability to open its sessions with the Pledge to the American flag which is a traditional practice at the opening of City Council meetings and City events. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby supports the United States Attorney General's request for a rehearing en banc of the full Ninth Circuit Court inithe Newdow matter and the Department of Justice's defense of the right for the nation's children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in its current form. Section 2. The City Council directs the City Clerk to forward an executed copy of the Resolution herein to the Department of Justice. Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause the same to be processed in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of August, 2002. Robert W. Bruesch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Valderrama, CMC City Clerk 2- Mom wants girl out of dad's pled.../ She says daughter does believe in 'one nation under God Page 1 of 2 .A~4SF Gate www stgate.com Return to regular view Mom wants girl out of dad's pledge lawsuit She says daughter does believe in 'one nation under God' Bob Eaelko, Chronicle Stat[Writer Tuesday, August 6, 2002 ©2002 San Francisco Chronicle. URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f~-/c/a/2002/08/06/MN234068.DTL The mother of the 8-year-old Sacramento-area girl at the center of the Pledge of Allegiance furor asked a federal appeals court Monday for permission to enter the case or to remove her daughter from the proceedings because the child believes in "one nation under God." However, Sandra Banning's legal filing does not seek outright dismissal of the lawsuit by the girl's father, Michael Newdow, an atheist. Banning does not challenge Newdow's right to sue as a parent interested in guiding his child's religious upbringing, but she argues that her rights are superior because she was awarded sole legal custody by a judge in February. That order gave Banning "the sole right to represent (her daughtei s) legal interests and make all decisions about her education," she said in a declaration accompanying her motion to intervene in the case. "I do not wish for my daughter, for the rest of her life, to be known as 'the atheist child who hated the Pledge.' It is therefore imperative that the court allow the (case) to go forward, if at all, without my daughter as a party." Newdow, a Sacramento physician with a law degree who is acting as his own attorney, said his suit shouldn't be affected. "I'm still a parent and still have a right to keep the government from indoctrinating my child," he said in an interview. When Newdow filed the suit in 2000, he and Banning, who were never married, had joint legal as well as physical custody of their daughter. Newdow still shares physical custody but is allowed visitation only every other weekend, he said. Banning's public emergence in mid-July, and portrayal of her daughter as a churchgoing Christian, cast new uncertainty on the epic June 26 ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. In a 2-1 decision, the court said the phrase "under God," added to the Pledge of Allegiance by a 1954 federal law, was an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion when recited in the classroom. The court is being inundated with pleas to reconsider the ruling or refer it to an 11-judge http://sfgate.comlcgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/cla/2002/08lO6iMN234068.DTL&type=printable 8/6/2002 Mom wants girl out of dad's pled.../ She says daughter does believe in 'one nation under God Page 2 of 2 Ninth Circuit panel for a rehearing, a decision that needs a majority vote of the entire court's 24 active judges. The state has filed its arguments against the decision and was joined Monday by the Elk Grove Unified School District, where the girl is entering the third grade. The Bush administration's Justice Department is scheduled to file next Monday, and various members of Congress and others are offering their views. At a news conference outside the court's San Francisco headquarters, Banning was accompanied by lawyers from a Washington, D.C., firm that she is paying from her Pledge Defense Fund. She let slip her daughter's name several times but asked reporters not to reveal it, a request The Chronicle and other news organizations is honoring. Banning, who runs a small clerical and computer support business from her home in Elk Grove, south of Sacramento, said she had been aware of the suit when Newdow filed it and knew it involved their daughter but had no idea Newdow was claiming that having to recite "under God" harmed the child. "I did not think the case had any merit, so I just blew it off as hobby litigation," like other suits Newdow has filed, Banning said. She said she had first learned of the details of the case when the appeals court's ruling was announced, and she tried to shield her daughter from the ensuing uproar. The child's life has not been affected, she said. "If she says she didn't know what it's about, that is absolute nonsense," Newdow retorted. "We discussed it a million times." He said Banning was "being used" by "some religious group." Although the court could decide Banning waited too long to intervene in the case, her attorneys argued that she had "tried to intervene as soon as she was practicably able." In Monday's other filing, the Elk Grove school district said that the information provided by Banning showed that Newdow "does not have the right to control (his daughter's) education" and that his suit should be dismissed. The district also argued that "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance for a nonreligious purpose "to acknowledge the role of God in our history." E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com. ©2002 San Francisco Chronicle. Page A - 3 http://sfgate.comlcgi-binlarticle.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/08lO6lMN234068.DTL&type=printable 8/6/2002 Los Angeles Times: Reversal Is Sought on Pledge Ruling Page 1 of 2 goo 'S*WM8 /~tftl http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-elk6aug06. story?coll=la°/"2 Dheadlines%2Dcalifomia THE STATE Reversal Is Sought on Pledge Ruling By NORA ZAMICHOW TIMES STAFF WRITER August 6 2002 The Elk Grove Unified School District filed a petition Monday in an attempt to overturn the appellate court ruling that potentially outlaws the use of the words "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The school officials are trying to reverse a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that incited a political brouhaha. In filing the petition, the school district essentially asked the three judge panel to reconsider its decision or to have the case reheard by an 1 I-judge panel. "We're asking them to reverse the decision because we don't feel the use of the words, 'under God,' constitutes pushing religion," said David Gordon, superintendent of the 52,000-student district south of Sacramento. The controversial 2-1 ruling, issued in June, declared that the Pledge of Allegiance violated the U.S. Constitution because the phrase "under God" endorsed religion. The ruling was stayed and has had no immediate practical effect. If allowed to stand, it would mean that public school children in nine western states would be barred from reciting the pledge with the disputed words. Gordon pointed out that no child in the Elk Grove district is forced to participate in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Gordon said he was "quite shocked" by the court ruling and "obviously, we're hoping to have this resolved as quickly as possible." Politicians, including Gov. Gray Davis and President Bush, blasted the ruling of the San Francisco- based court. Late-night comedians went wild. "Tonight Show" host Jay Leno, for instance, announced that he was going to open the show with the Pledge of Allegiance, "but I don't want to go to jail." The case was brought by Michael Newdow, an atheist who was upset about teacher-led recitations in a class attended by Newdow's 8-year-old daughter. Newdow filed on behalf of his daughter. Newdow, 49, was unavailable for comment. If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives. For information about reprinting this article, go to www.lats.com/rights. http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=laa/o2Dme%2Delk6aug06 8/6/2002 Yes: Imperial, Taylor, Bruesch, Clark, Vasquez No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-36 - A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT'S REQUEST FOR A REHEARING OF THE NEWDOW CASE REGARDING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The following Resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2002-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD SUPPORTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT'S REQUEST FOR A REHEARING OF THE NEWDOW CASE REGARDING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE AMERICAN FLAG MOTION BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK that the Council adopt Resolution No. 2002-36. Vote resulted: Yes: Imperial, Taylor, Bruesch, Clark, Vasquez No: None - - -Absent: None Abstain: None e Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, Rosemead, stated that Islamic subjects are being taught at a school in northern California. D. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-37 - CONSENTING TO A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 1, AMENDMENT 4 AND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2002-37 CCMIN:8-13-02 Page #3