Since last June, when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it contains the words "under God," the nation has hotly debated the precise meaning of this phrase and all of the implications that go along with it.
The two 9th Circuit Court judges who wrote the majority opinion weren't kooky when they made their decision -- their arguments were based on historical circumstances and a careful, conservative interpretation of the Constitution. Their reasoning, however, is ultimately shortsighted and fails to take into account the so-called "ceremonial deism" that pervades American patriotism and culture.
Last Tuesday the 9th Circuit granted a 90-day stay on their original ruling, anticipating a probable Supreme Court hearing on the issue in late April. If Michael Newdow had gotten his way, however, 9.6 million schoolchildren in nine Western states would have stopped reciting the Pledge of Allegiance as of yesterday -
Read More
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | YesterdayA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | 4 days agoThe University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
SULLIVAN: Gov. Youngkin purges integrity from voter registration process
By Scarlett Sullivan | 6 days agoYoungkin once again abandoned his duty to protect Virginian voters’ rights, setting a dangerous precedent for elections.
