Supreme Court essays

Supreme Court essays The Supreme Court ruled on June 14, 2004, to keep the phrase, under God, intact in the Pledge of Allegiance. While the eight participating justices had dissenting opinions, all unanimously ruled against the case Matthew Newdow had presented to the court many months ago. The court stated that Newdow did not have a legitimate standing and therefore cannot challenge the Pledge in the high court. This decision, as a result, leaves the original pledge unaltered. Throughout the course of American history, there has always been a power struggle between the government and its people. This conflict is the focus of much debate and it is the basis for our democracy. The aforementioned court ruling created many implications and dilemmas concerning the democratic ideal. The first amendment and the notion about the separation of church and state were both focal points of the heated dispute. Since both are fundamental liberties, they are linked directly with democracy. The national court decision obstructs the advancement of democracy in America because these liberties are violated. The first amendment clearly states the basic freedoms an American citizen has and the freedoms of religion and speech are emphasized in the constitution. Newdow has justifiable cause to present his case to the U.S Supreme Court, the highest court of the land. He personally believed that his undeniable rights as an American citizen were being infringed upon. As a father and an atheist, Newdow strongly advocated the separation of church and state idea and wanted it enforced in his daughters elementary school through the pledge. He was a strong supporter of the first amendment and didnt want the Pledge mandatory to listen to. The decision made by the court really slows down the ideal toward the perfect democracy. Although they left the case open for further prosecution, the high court has greatly stunted the progression...