- Con to the question "Should the Words “under God” Be in the US Pledge of Allegiance?"
“Since the emergence of its Establishment Clause jurisprudence nearly fifty years ago, the Supreme Court has struggled mightily to explain why ceremonial deism is permitted in our constitutional framework while other practices the Court has invalidated are not. The normative vision embraced by the endorsement test is blurred beyond recognition if practices such as…a Pledge of Allegiance to a nation ‘under God,’ and the like are permitted to persist. Any explanation of why these practices survive constitutional scrutiny under this test, while school prayer and other practices invalidated by the Court do not, is hopelessly inadequate.”
Columbia Law Review, Dec. 1996
- Theoretical Expertise Ranking:
Individuals with JD's, or equivalent advanced degrees in fields relevant to government and constitutional law. Also top-level government officials (such as foreign leaders, US presidents, Founding Fathers, Supreme Court Justices, members of legislative bodies, cabinet members, military leaders, etc.) with positions relevant to government and constitutional law.
- Involvement and Affiliations:
- Counsel, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice, Hunton & Williams LLP
- Visiting Assistant Professor and Director of Legal Writing, University of Illinois College of Law, 1994-1996
- Associate, Fuller, Becton, Billings & Slifkin, P.A., 1992–1994
- Law Clerk, Hon. W. Earl Britt, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina, 1990-1992
- JD, University of North Carolina School of Law, 1990
- BA, University of North Carolina, 1987
- None found
- Quoted in: