Suit seeks to remove “so help me God” from oath of office
Michael Newdow, the man who sued to get the words “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, is the lead plaintiff in a suit filed in U.S. District Court that seeks to get the words “so help me God” out of the oath of office that presidents swear on inauguration day and to prevent prayers from being said at the inaguaration. He is joined by more than a dozen individuals and about 10 groups, including the American Humanist Association and the Freedom from Religion Foundation.
The Washington Post story is here.
Part of the complaint is based on the constitutionality of the oath. The oath, as it appears in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, does not include the words “so help me God.” Those words were added by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and have been used since.
Newdow’s Pledge suit was not successful, but on procedural grounds. A circuit court of appeals found that the words “under God” in the Pledge violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; but the U.S. Supeme Court threw out the case because it said Newdow did not have standing to bring the suit. (He had sued on behalf of his young daughter of whom he did not have custody. Amazingly, threats were made against Newdow and his daughter.)
Newdow, an atheist from Northern California, filed similar suits in 2001 and 2005.
Do you think the inclusion of the words “so help me god” in the oath of office is unconstitutional? Should presidents and other elected officials take oaths of office on Bibles? What about invocations and benedictions at the ceremony?
Jamie Riley is the P-D letters editor and gatekeeper of the letters blog. Before joining the editorial page in May 2005, she was a reporter and page designer. Jamie lives in University City with her husband, Charles, daughter, Elise, and the world's best Jack Russell terrier, Logan, better known as Stinky. 
> A circuit court of appeals found that the words “under God” in the
> Pledge violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
Yes, that would be the 9th circuit court of appeals, the most liberal - and most reversed - appeals court in the nation.
If the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals were a newspaper,
it would be the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
So they should definitely get this one right. It’s a no brainer. Take your mental illness to church, not the courthouse.
“Amazingly, threats were made against Newdow and his daughter.”
I don’t think anybody who ever spoke out against religion being forced into government would ever say “amazingly”. “Predictably” would seem more realistic.
Simian
Unconstitutional - Absolutely not. I really don’t care if the oath is taken with hand on a Bible, Torah, Koran, or their mother’s head. The whole object here is to take an oath that has some meaning. (I know, politicians violate their oaths everyday). At one time it was considered unthinkable to break your word to God or your mother.
The biggest problem with this small but very loud minority is they’re wearing their underwear way to tight!!!
They’re afraid of Government forcing religion down their throats because they might have to hear the word God. No one is forcing them to believe, they just don’t want to hear and be reminded that they are the minority.
Of course it’s okay for them to force their religion (Atheism) down my throat. It’s okay for them to prevent me from the free exercise of my religion
My copy of the Constitution gives us freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. If you don’t want to believe, that’s your choice. But you don’t have the right to prevent the rest of us from the “free exercise” of the religion of our choice. Even if that’s in a public place as we are as much the public as you.
If the oath of office, as written in the Constitution, does not include “so help me God”, then that nutjob Newdow (he’s not a nutjob for his beliefs or lack thereof, but rather for his thrusting himself into the media every election cycle) may have a viable case. The framers of the Constitution knew what they wanted the oath to contain, but they also created a method by which the document could be altered-amendments.
Now, if this suit succeeds it could lead to a change in the military enlistment oath which also contains the phrase “so help me God”.
If one follows the anti-establishment clause in its traditional interpretation and subscribes to the words of Jesus, who said “Render unto Caesar…,” it soon becomes obvious that we have a conflict without a contradiction. Both sources concur, thus “so help me god,” and the Pledge’s “under god,” neither of which are in the original versions, are patently out of place. Furthermore, “In God We Trust,” and various and sundry references to a deity in the Declaration of Independence are equally inappropriate. So do I stay up nights worrying about these illogical and outdated superstitious inroads into my civil and governmental structure. No more than I worry about my daughter’s obsession of drawing a “happy face” on every piece of paper she can get her hands on, including my tax forms, checks to Traffic Court, or letters to the editor. Mr. Newdow appears to be a nudnik who obviously has never seen the movies “God Is My Co-Pilot,” “The Godfather,” or any San Francisco Giants baseball game that had Jesus Alou in the outfield.
Now, this man has courage. I applaud him.
What an “A” hole.
If the oath of office in the Constitution doesn’t include the words “under God,” what’s the basis for the suit? Because the president-elect (who is only a “Congratulations, Mr. President” from the Chief Justice away from taking the most powerful position on earth) decides to ask his god’s help (Christian or otherwise) in executing the office?
Hmmmm… it sounds like a violation of the Constitution alright. But not like Mr. Newdow would hope…
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
If this lawsuit were to be successful, should then-President Obama file his case in the DC courts, or Chicago courts?