Response or Comment
This article is a brief response to another article arguing that the words “under God” do not render the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. Attorney D. Chris Allbright’s provocative plea that the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is insufficiently religious to offend contemporary Establishment Clause principles rests on three wobbly premises: (1) a limited perspective of some of the Framers, one which the Supreme Court rightly has eschewed; (2) Supreme Court dicta reflecting at best certain justices’ cursory suppositions about the religiosity of the words “under God;” and, (3) the wholly irrelevant, and possibly inaccurate argument that the words “under God” have had scant influence on schoolchildren.
Nev. Law., May 2003, at 16.
Bayer, Peter Brandon, "Brief Response to Attorney Albright's Article" (2003). Scholarly Works. Paper 341.