Prof. Kunesh has raised as important question with regard to the priority of
public opinion and the U. S. Constitution.  I believe correctly answering it
is more important than the current concern over the constitutionality of part
of the Pledge to our Flag.  As citizens under law we must affirm that the
Constitution takes precedence, where it applies, over public opinion.
Happily, in the Pledge case, there is no conflict because the widely supported
phrase does not violate our national Constitution.

   Establishment prohibited in the First Amendment refers to funding of a
national church (e.g. the Church of England.)  Clearly this is not the issue
in the Pledge case.  Furthermore, this pledge recitation was at the behest of
a state or school district, rather than Congress.  It is incorrect (the
Supreme Court and lower courts notwithstanding) to even apply the First
Amendment to the states, for the people, as required by our constitutional
amendment process, never ratified this application.  Even after the adoption
of the Bill of Rights in 1791 a number of the states continued to have
established churches.  The last, in Massachusetts, was not abolished until
about 1830.  Incidentally I think a better name for the first Ten Amendments
would be the Bill of Restrictions, for their purpose was to restrict the
national government.

   Neither did the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, apply the First Amendment
to the states.  This is proved by the subsequent proposal of the Blaine
Amendment, which would have extended the prohibition of establishment to the
states, but failed to be ratified in 1875. This amendment would not have been
proposed if the 14th Amendment already accomplished its intended purpose.  It
took the Supreme Court 72 years, till 1940, to arbitrarily apply the religion
clauses of the First Amendment to the states, a doctrine called incorporation.


   Were the justices merely slow readers? No, clearly their action was
unconstitutional judicial activism.  They are not philosopher-kings and are
not granted amendment authority.  Neither do they have the authority to decide
if laws are wise or not. I caution those who would give such power to the
Court, thus allowing the Constitution to be amended by as few as five of our
citizens, to contemplate whether they would consider this power proper if the
Court majority had views at the other end of the political spectrum from their
own. I think not.

   Proper protection has been given to those who wish not to take part in
Pledge exercises.  Non-participation may be accomplished easily and without
detection if the individual is merely silent, mumbles, or skips over parts
personally objectionable.  As a boy I was a member of a Cub Scout pack
sponsored by the neighborhood Catholic Church, though I am Protestant.  When
they sometimes said the rosary at meetings I stood quietly and none of us was
offended.  I regard it as intolerant for those objecting to “under God” to
attempt to force the removal of these words favored by what I believe is an
overwhelming majority of our citizens.  Though minorities must be respected
they must not become tyrants.

   If “under God” is unacceptable in the Pledge, the second verse of our
national anthem is also unacceptable for it includes the phrase, “And this be
our motto: ‘in God is our trust.’”  Finally, if  “under God” is removed
because it offends unbelievers, English speaking western monotheists like
myself must be granted similar relief from the reference to Greek, Roman, and
Norse gods in the names of all the days of the week except Sunday and Monday,
as well as January, March, and May.   To those who would assert that “under
God” is unconstitutional in the Pledge, so are our calendars!  This is
trivial.

   James W. Hiestand