Supreme Court won't rule on "Under God."
Most of you probably have heard that the Supreme Court chose not to hear the case of "under God." The reason cited is that the man bringing the suit didn't have legal grounds to do so -- he wasn't the legal guardian of his daughter, and so couldn't bring forth a suit regarding her well-being.
It may seem that a court ruling would have been preferable, but consider the following:
First, the ruling may have been in favor of "under God" -- and then you'd be stuck with it for about twenty years before it even came up again.
Second, if the ruling had been against "under God" then Congress would have written a Constitutional Amendment to include the words (and who knows what else). Then the Supreme Court couldn't do squat about it.
Third (and probably most important, really), if the case had been heard, regardless of the outcome, it would provide precedence, greatly increasing the legal power of non-custodial parents, and I'm sure there are non-custodial parents out there that would love to take advantage.
It may seem that a court ruling would have been preferable, but consider the following:
First, the ruling may have been in favor of "under God" -- and then you'd be stuck with it for about twenty years before it even came up again.
Second, if the ruling had been against "under God" then Congress would have written a Constitutional Amendment to include the words (and who knows what else). Then the Supreme Court couldn't do squat about it.
Third (and probably most important, really), if the case had been heard, regardless of the outcome, it would provide precedence, greatly increasing the legal power of non-custodial parents, and I'm sure there are non-custodial parents out there that would love to take advantage.
