Associate Professor at the University of Mississippi School of Law
Pro to the question "Should the Words "under God" Be in the US Pledge of Allegiance?"
"Many unfamiliar with the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause doctrine would not have supposed that being required to listen to a phrase such as 'under God' would amount to a constitutional harm. And those same persons, when posed with the question of whether they believed the Pledge of Allegiance to be a religious exercise, would have probably answered 'no.' Thus Michael Newdow's claim can be seen as doubly anomalous, resting on the feelings of a religious outsider when required to passively listen to a marginally religious message...
[T]he Establishment Clause should not be interpreted as requiring elimination of every religious message or practice. Demanding inclusion merely inverts the classifications of judicial winners and losers, but does little to promote the overall well-being of society's members."
Experts JD's (lawyers), US Presidents, federal appellate opinions, US Founding Fathers, Members of Congress, members of state legislative bodies with significant involvement in, or related to, the "under God" conflict and/or government and constitutional law, and those with PhD's in government, constitutional law or other relevant fields. [Note: Experts definition varies by site.]
Involvement and Affiliations:
Associate Professor, University of Mississippi School of Law
Co-Chair Elect, Law and Religion Section, Association of American Law Schools
Former Associate, Knapp, Marsh, Jones and Doran, L.L.P.
Judicial Clerk, Honorable Henry Lee Adams, Jr., United States District Court, Middle District of Florida