Ninth Circuit reverses self and makes sense.

Thanks to Legal Writing III, all OBCL graduates in the last few years are familiar with the 9th Circuit's 2002 decision ruling the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" unconstitutional.

Last Thursday, in response to yet another lawsuit filed by Dr. Michael Newdow, the 9th Circuit issued a ruling reversing the 2002 holding, finding instead that it IS constitutional to say "under God" in the Pledge.

Writing for a 2-1 majority, Judge Carlos Bea relied on the argument that the words "under God" are a statement of our nation's political philosophy, an echo of the Declaration of Independence:

The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded and for which we continue to strive: one Nation under God—the Founding Fathers’ belief that the people of this nation are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; indivisible—although we have individual states, they are united in one Republic; with liberty —the government cannot take away the people’s inalienable rights; and justice for all—everyone in America is entitled to “equal justice under the law” (as is inscribed above the main entrance to our Supreme Court).

Now there's an argument that should sound familiar to more than a few alumni.

Click here to read the press release from the Becket Fund, a leader in propounding the "philosophy of government" argument.

All 193 pages of the opinion (including Judge Reinhardt's dissent) can be accessed here.