Yet Again, AG Abbott Defends the Constitutionality of the Texas Pledge

By Robert Wilonsky Wed., Dec. 2 2009 at 5:08 PM

Categories: News, Politics

Pin It

Remember when David and Shannon Croft sued the state because they didn't want their kids, then enrolled in the Carrollton-Farmers Branch school district, to recite the Texas Pledge of Allegiance? Yup. Totally forgot about that one. That was two long years ago -- back when the Crofts also sued the state separately over a law mandating that schoolchildren start their mornings with a moment of silence. U.S. District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn upheld the moment of silence in January 2008, but that pledge lawsuit's still hanging around the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit after U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade upheld its constitutionality earlier this year.

Which is why Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed a brief with the court today yet again defending the Texas Pledge. You can read the whole 32-page brief if you like. But Abbott also released a statement, in which he said:

Just as it is perfectly constitutional for Texas schoolchildren to pledge their allegiance to "one nation, under God," it is also constitutional for students to pledge their allegiance to "one state, under God." Despite multiple U.S. Supreme Court decisions finding that patriotic acknowledgments of the Almighty are constitutional -- and a federal district court ruling rejecting their lawsuit -- the plaintiffs are continuing their attack on the Texas Pledge. The Office of the Attorney General remains committed to protecting young Texans' right to express their patriotism and recite the Texas Pledge of Allegiance each morning.

Like this Story?

Sign up for the Weekly Newsletter: Our weekly feature stories, movie reviews, calendar picks and more - minus the newsprint and sent directly to your inbox.

Write Comment

Email to Friend

Print Article

Related Content

Scott M, I dig that. I really do.
Point for Glenn Hunter!
@Ankhorite: "I agree with Bubba above: did Texas legislators imagine schoolchildren were going to run off to Oklahoma or New Mexico?" Er, no. That would be Texas legislators who pull stunts like that.
Forcing kids to pledge every day really renders the pledge rather meaningless. Once a week (if at all) is enough, I think. As for the Texas pledge, it's simply contradictory to the whole "one nation, indivisible" part of the US pledge. It's ridiculous, and the fact that it's state law and has to be recited every day goes to show what whacko rightwing nutcases rule this legislature.
Since when did Texas have a state pledge? Leave it to Texas to try to pull something like that. I've lived in Texas most of my life, but I'm still a Yankee first, so they can stick that pledge where the sun don't shine. ******* You have to remember that Texas was an independent republic before joining the United States. We tend to give ourselves airs. Having said that, I personally think the Texas pledge is silly, especially the part about being indivisible, as the annexation agreement clearly stated that Texas could split itself into 4 additional states. (Seriously, look it up--it's about the only thing I remember from that 7th-grade Texas history class.)
"James says: Once again I�m shocked! A liberal paper with a liberal blog with a bunch of liberal posters� Shocked I tell you!!" I personally am not liberal. I'm a moderate that believes in liberty and common sense. If you happened to live in a liberal state that pulled a stunt like a 'pledge', you and all your tea party knucklehead pals would be screaming commie-fascism, waving your Gadsden flags, and having Glenn Back and Sarah Palin called in as reinforcements. The USA gets my loyalty, period. Perry and his pledge can shove it. If conservatives are about liberty and individuality, as they try to paint themselves these days, then they shouldn't be pushing pledges. Especially within states with so many transplants.
Once again I�m shocked! A liberal paper with a liberal blog with a bunch of liberal posters� Shocked I tell you!!
Since when did Texas have a state pledge? Leave it to Texas to try to pull something like that. I've lived in Texas most of my life, but I'm still a Yankee first, so they can stick that pledge where the sun don't shine. Next thing you know they'll try to get us to worship a golden longhorn.
Handsome Lance Manion has no idea what an atheist is.
Personally I prefer the American's Creed over the pledge of allegiance. You can look up it's history but it reads: by William Tyler Page I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.
Greg Abbott's just another right-wing nut job poser. Unfortunately, if you criticize him, people want to say that you're being mean to the handicapped. I wish someone would oppose that d-bag in the next election and kick him to the curb.
I agree with Bubba above: did Texas legislators imagine schoolchildren were going to run off to Oklahoma or New Mexico? The state pledge is plain silly, and the "Under God" U.S. pledge is an unconstitutional prayer. Patriotism means standing up for freedom of -- and freedom from, if that's your choice -- religion. Forced pledges have been ruled unConstitutional since the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_vs._Barnette><i>Barnette</i></a> ruling in 1943. Grow up, people.
So what happens if you don't recite it? And what idiot came up with the idea of a pledge of allegiance to a state anyway? Are they afraid the youngsters are going to defect to Oklahoma?
My issue with forcing kids to recite the pledge is that it is a disruption to the learning process -which is illegal in it's own right. Trying to get 25-30 high schoolers to focus at the beginning of class is hard enough. Getting them to settle down and focus a second time 10 minutes later after the two pledges is twice as hard.
"The Office of the Attorney General remains committed to protecting young Texans' right to express their patriotism and recite the Texas Pledge of Allegiance each morning." I'm not sure that forcing kids to recite a pledge is really allowing them to express their patriotism.
A "right to express their patriotism"? I call BS. This is forced. Comply or else. The Congress never should have inserted "under god" during the red scare. It needs to be removed from both. And don't get me started on the whole "pledge of allegiance" thing in the first place. Images of fascists/dictators pop into my mind. Why can't we all just realize that everyone on this planet is essentially the same. Political borders have changed throughout history and will continue to change, until hopefully one day they disappear altogether.
Please tell me that you're kidding about the Lee Greenwood song. Not that I have anything against the sentiments expressed in the song (at least the part you quoted), but was there at least an exemption for "musical conscientious objectors" or something?
Every day in DISD, we go through the Pledge to the US flag and the Pledge to the Texas flag, followed by our moment of silence. When I taught in south Texas, we did the US Pledge followed by singing part of a Lee Greenwood song (...I'm proud to be an American/ Where at least I know I'm free/ And I won't forget the men who died/ To give that right to me/ So I'll proudly stand up next to you / And defend her still today / 'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land/ God bless the USA). It seemed more grateful and concrete than a "moment of silence" where my smart-alecks put their fingers together and say, "Ohhhmmmm" like they're Buddhists or something. Then again, we had multiple Catholic channels and our school menu followed Catholic dictates. I just loved it.
Just because one believes in God, does not make one religious. Religion is a group of people who believe in God in the same manner. You can be anti-religion yet still believe in God (aka: Agnostic) thus making the "separation of church (or religion) and state" a moot point when discussing pledges of allegiance in this country. If one, however, is atheist, then one believes that there is really nothing to separate the state from so once again it makes the "separation of church and state" a "separation of nothing and state" thus again, a moot point.