SOC205 - CASE TWO - I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
CASE TWO
1




I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
Strayer University
Felicia McCaw
Professor Clinton Gortney
SOC205
Online Winter 2017
March 1, 2017

I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
2

In salutation to the American Flag and the people and our glorious nation I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag of this country that stands as a united force and face against the invasion of terrorism and abject misery inflicted upon all who seek sanctuary in this nation of right. Challenged repeatedly as being unconstitutional and a violation of rights the Pledge of Allegiance stills stands for the fidelity and trust placed rigidly in the hands of the protectors of this country America. Being misconstrued as blind allegiance to the United States it stands to reason that without faith in their mother nation or offspring the facilitory right to uphold the legal sanctions, legal structure of the judicial system, societal structure and rights, social norms and inherent societal functions of alertness would cause the erosion of a patriot and national active stance to serve as a true American who loves the very essence of freedom, liberty and peace for all.

Arguments facing the Pledge of Allegiance encompass the following dissents that support the thought that the language of the pledge violates the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, that the nature of the pledge causes ethical conflict and last that it exemplifies tenants of radical nationalism and fascist idolatry. Further the active use of the phrase of “Under God” is also a supposed hindering and controlling act that causes an infringement of free choice and violation of the First Amendment. As such the oath taken every day is not a fascist act but a realization that it reiterates the devotion of people true to the protection of liberty, freedom, free speech and choice of stance against an invading force that would nullify, void and cancel a free way to life and all its true inherency to be free to evolve a country forward with loyalty and devotion and thankfulness of a country that protects and loves it own.

The supposed thought that the phrase “Under God” is a prevalent and malicious violation of the Establishment Clause when the Flag Code was amended in 1954, when John E.

I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
3

Thompson, J.D., a graduate of Harvard Law School made distinction that the purpose was to make clarity of a country distinct from communism and atheism and affirm the United States as a country of religion and to further infuse the children with the belief of God and under the protection of God.

As such the rights of Congress to change, modify and adopt renditions, changes are permissive due to the evolve nature of state and government. In reflection, no violation of the Establishment Clause has been adhered to but the act of forethought to bind a unique assortment of races to stand as one against any invasionary force and also benefit the nature of a moral structure by the addition of a religious base to effectively retain the respect, dignity, chastity and base to parlay and trade on equal standing as a new country still in the growing state with other countries of older.

The ethical purpose of the Pledge of Allegiance causes differing interpretations of acceptance in a country rout with structural layers of discrimination, prejudice and oppressions that fulfills a purpose for one and not all. As a structuralized country that provides an ethical point the conclusionary analysis would always be for all races in its inclusiveness. As all are factors of consideration and backers, builders that evolve a nation forward. In consequence, it is not the Pledge of Allegiance but the active phraseology that is being challenged and the dismissive rights of a people oppressed, stifled, muffled, hushed and intimidated and as its inherentory rights are challenged also are rights to have progeny. Even if the Pledge of Allegiance was denied, cancelled still the active oppression, suppression of a people’s quest for freedom would be denied as well as the educational latitude and allowance for growth, expansion, commerce and free law.

I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
4

Therefore, in all of its states of equity the ethical challenges are mute, void due to the heavy influence of a socialized, internal bias of a country still holding unto the values of superiority and remarkably hate of a race that contributes but is encouraged to be exemplified as a “horror in the night”.

The ethical concern is primarily interwoven with the prevalent challenge of inequality and socialized principles of those viewed as wrong even though right as a consistent pattern of suppression and oppression. Further any active participation of patriotnism is seen unequivocally as a privilege to the free, the proud and the brave but not of a color and race that was held in bondage but still is bound by chains of invisibility. Therefore, the act of nationalism is seen in a hostile facility to disclose the rendering of a no, non-acceptance to those who are free with will of permit as those who are unasked. Once again, the ethical play raises flags of question who is a patriot those of acceptance of the dominant race in this culture or those who actively love a country by migration. A fallacy is not the ethical concern but the annihilation of a race and its supposed unequaled iniquities viewed as socialized inequalities and supposed inability that is rendered by hate, jealousy, spite, venom and distaste. In consequence, the overt inclusion of all races to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance shows not a impairing of nationalism but indeed a mean subtle intent to dislocate, irradiate and destroy a race of unwant.

These revelations are heavily indicated by dual purpose of justice that says “for all” but revolve to differing states when addressing minority issues by slights, alienation and change of outlook by known perception and deceit. Therefore, the case of extreme nationalism becomes a moot issue with no standing or prevalency because it is geared toward one race and not others, which support the theory of leading violence, social ostracism and dismissals of supposed guaranteed inalienable rights for American citizens.

I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
5

But the question comes who is American now and who is the active benefactor in a country of “who” since this country is a melting pot of diverse cultures, differing languages, religions, ethnicities this too stands to question who is “America” when the chosen language is questioned in the Pledge of Allegiance but the purpose is what? Mockery? Sardonic amusement or an inner ploy to teach hate, disallowance, innate resentment, looks and thoughts of nature of despisement. But as a reflection free thought is actively encouraged, unhindered and is a constitutional right as well as resentment of supposed deflections that are felt detrimental to a country of equal and free with the primary language of English spoken.

As in the case of Massachusetts Supreme Court the Pledge of Allegiance does not act as a facilitator to discriminate against non-religious (Case – Jane Doe vs. Action-Boxborough Regional School District) it still stands as an act of voluntary but a patriotic act. The legal history reflects the pledge as first appearing in 1892, codified in 1942 with “Under God” added in 1954. As a support the Jane Doe case became a parallel when it assisted in the ruling of the 2004 Elk Grove United States School District vs. Newdow that had a similar challenge and query.

The active ingredient in these cases seem to lead to assertions of “they felt included”, “stigmatized”, “marginalized”, “a lack of belonging”, “supposed atheist state”, and since no adverse treatment was received the grounds for complaint were found insufficient, null and void do the act being voluntary. Therefore, since the pledge is not an active dictatorship to religion it does not lead to the fecundity of the act of religion and is once again a challenge and complaint of moot.


I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
6

Any active charge against constitutional rights are prevalently a charge of the Magna Carta which is the founding block of the Constitution in all its ancestral form and acts of truth, honor, legality, fairness and righteousness for the acts of free man and woman in all stages of livelihood. Active in clauses 1, 27, 34, 38, 39, 40, 42, 54, 61 and 63.

These clauses are evident in each word and writing of the Constitution and protect each and every person in this country from the effects of force, control and dictatorship and denies the act of a totalitarian government. As in the Magna Carta, Martin Luther’s King, Jr.’s speech “I Have a Dream” further highlights and delineates that the negro is still not free but is bound by invisible chains of structuralized oppression and suppression. A crippling state of triumph the mockery hails and sings they are not free by the power act of segregation, educational denial and exile in the country of America. In betrayal of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence the promissory note is looked upon as “what” when it comes to black people but an inalienable right of liberty to all others of differing races with all amenities provided.

The active state of pledging to a country that is “hate” becomes a heartrending state and question of “why” am I not a heir to the promise and right. This act of gradualism is not indeed a happening for the fear of protest is running rampant and thrills the soul to continue, to walk, and protest the version of vision a person of color propelled by the act of socialization, deprivation and mockery. As such the active march of democracy still holds it seductive sway and the promise of a better tomorrow. As the quick sands gather fast, dear and deadly so does the right to fair justice begin to pall as the level of bigotry and hatred spirals out of control and the denial of the fair right to compete on all grounds from basic to intellectual challenge to parlay and exchange. Again 1963, is not an end but a beginning for the coming of judgment begins from this instance when the state of dire retroversion begins its evil song of hate and the fight begins

I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
7

for the rights of all to stand for the promise to challenge, query, pause and reflect the state of pledging allegiance to a country that must be fair with competition or the closure of stagnation, limitation, death and foreign dominancy will reign supreme. For indeed the bitter is the sweet and wine of provocation and thought with acts of peace, non-violence and to not incline toward the distrust of all white people for the destiny of two is aligned as the destiny of one. I too have a dream that the Pledge of Allegiance will stand “Tall” for all races for a patriot is a servant and worthy is that servant of his or her country to stand firm and hard against an evil foul to air and earth. Let freedom ring to think, evolve, create and unite.

As in Lincoln’s House Divided Speech a house turned against each other cannot stand, cannot unite, cannot defend, cannot communicate, cannot change, cannot evolve, cannot be. Those against country and man are the treason of the foul and the nature of this country of free enterprise, life and liberty and joy to be within. Understanding the hierarchy tree of history is in its own act a challenge and facilitator to end some of the ramifications of the lingering effects of slavery and consequential interactive purpose of now and denial of rights in any purpose of change. For indeed, Squatter Sovereignty is indeed a mockery when a man is a man and a woman is a woman and all are deemed equal and therefore the affects of slavery and lingering effects become a living force and continuous joke.

As a right, give me liberty or give me death for a life of servitude or slavery is an injustice and regression to an era of horrendous thought and action. Therefore, the inclusion of God and servitude to him became a merciful plead and endeavor to allow the freedom to debate and challenge acts considered at the height of hypocrisy and regressional latitude. The truth whether hurtful or brutal compels a man or woman to act with reason against conflictions to freedom with no standard of yoke placed upon them. For a man or woman of intellect is

I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
8

therefore now considered a beast (an ape) of inability to vocalize thought, reason with mind through the usage of pen and pencil of the written and verbal or that he or she indeed is personalification of all that is human but is being treated thus as a residue of slavery and intentional conditioning of a dysfunctional society. For the truth whether partial or all is never negligible but a tangible sword against the unrighteous, deceitful and destroyers of society past is the preventer of folly in present and future even as the insidious curls with malevolency toward the right to protest a wrong still parallel to the legal structure and right to petition, pledge of allegiance and fight an injustice.

Subjugation of a person(s) is not ideal or allocator of support of any constitutional plan and that the act of truth is still the sword of destruction for those who compromise the few, the proud and the brave. For counter to freedom is slavery and that in itself is a factor of defeat but training and educating of all is a right of invoked and not a deflector of ill but a prevailing right of the Declaration of Independence that allows the measure of all for woman, man and child.

That as facilitates the equality of all men (women and children) as endowed by their creation with inalienable rights to live, freedom, prosper, health, happiness and rights of all irregardless of station in life whether impoverish or rich. Just as men are the societal holds, women are the holders as well and in that form they are equated with free choice equitable thought, reason, prudence, safety, freedom of not being chattel and interdisciplinary factors to facilitate happiness and fairness. Therefore, they (he and she) have greeted the Assent of Laws to be blood and hereditary factors of right, evolution and continuance.


I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
9

As such the need to object is evidential cause for equal measure whether male or female. As guaranteed the lodging of acts to render a person powerless amongst the multitudes is prevented by this act of right (Declaration of Independence) and the Constitution of the United States that prevents a threshold of conspiracy to level and challenge the blood, active nervous system and skeletal framework for this country. As stated in the Monroe Doctrine the rights established have been carved with the deaths of many, blood of millions that propelled the defense of whether one or all and our own pervades the senses and fulfill the wisdom to know a season of change and menace that attacks an entirety and not just a single or double entity and as such it repeals the peace and safety previously granted. Therefore, the active state of oppression surges clear with threat of maim, mental, psychological and physicality.

In consequence, the Monroe Doctrine supports the right to independence and to be de facto as the government to assist in the cultivation of friendly relations, preservation of firm policy and claim of power and its right to pursue same course.

Another factor that helps retain the Pledge of Allegiance is the Bill or Rights with later amendments. The subsequent rights are active under the First Amendment, Amendment 6, 7, and 9, 14 and 15. These amendments effectively state and support the freedom of speech, or press and right of people to peacefully assemble, right to a fair and objective trial, rights in a civil case, rights retained by the people and its protection to not deny or disparage others by the people, whether of the Black nation or minority and right to Black suffrage and its state of exclusiveness in the Pledge of Allegiance and subsequent refusal of acknowledgment of rights of say whether in written form or verbal annotations.

I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
10

Conclusively, the American’s Creed voices the right and will of the people to act as one, be one and for the people irregardless of ill and actively retain democracy in a republic, which is a sovereign nation of many sovereign states and therefore a perfect union that is one and inseparable which is based upon the principles of freedom, equality, justice and humanity for which all patriots have died for and live for.

As George W. Harkins addressal to the American People that knowing and believing a crisis is at stake and even though the sympathy is for a distressed country we are was and now hedged by two evils, the choice that cost the least vs. the choice that should have ranged and clamored dear to heart. Protection of the legislature and ability to legislate and that which is ours. Therefore, could a mountain of prejudice be removed once justice has been obstructed, prevented and the right of freedom condemned and tainted by voices of ill-repute that prevents a true allocation that parallel and triumphs the truth. Oppression is as it is a trickery to undermine a race’s value in the land of promised and the acts are voluntary and not racially motivated but concealed with racial hate carving its own spear in back and spine. For deceit and hate comes to a protester who clamors for justice as the beating of his or her own heart and a choice to be seen, heard and acknowledged for a measure of peace for a people injured, deceitfully used, lied upon and a need for respite and solitary.

As Daniel Webster’s Seventh of March Speech prevails upon the need for continuous propriety, dignity and its own collective high responsibilities this also serves as facilitator to free choice and respective regard of a body that represents this country it supports the confidence and administering of wise, moderate patriotic confidence to lead the way safely and retain the legal structure and that the denial of agitations cannot be done and that dangers to home, land and

I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
11

person exist as well as threat to the justice system. As with the East, the North and South this has caused profound inclarities but affective to internal state is progressively stabilizing but still the lurk of hate and malice is lingering far and strong.

Duty as fidelity is the conclusion to follow the act of tomorrow, renders the judgment and actions of the future and conclusively affect reason, thought, security and ability to protest. Now, the Economic Bill of Rights entail the measure of strategic planning for winning peace and establishment of higher living which would consist of support for a nation continuously under fire and the people therein. In reflection, as thought and theories chase each other so does the question of our founding fathers’ illustrious words of treatise, structural and desire for continuing liberty and freedom. These great thoughts indeed parallel the wish for the people not as a proposal but a challenge to submerse the thoughts of a heretic that a Black man or woman is too primal to escalate a chain of high thought and progress. The acts of increase is progenious to support, appreciation, love and fidelity and as such a state of content cannot be allowed for like time and tomorrow the clock continues and need to change and evolve the people to become self-maintaining, supportive, self-facilitating exists with clear discernment. Therefore, stagnation cannot be cloaked as friend but as a foe to even the most least educated.

Consequently, these rights spell strength, political rights which include free speech without repudiation and ill will, free press, free to worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches, threat of harm and seizures. As thus the right to life and liberty is our blood and is invoked in all who are patriots who appear in any race with no color restrictions or discrimination learned or taught. Further the Economic Bill of Rights guarantees the right to a good education and ability to survive, support and maintain self, husband and family. Further the realization of these rights spell security and right against the odds of injustice.

I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
12

Lastly, ask not what your country can do for you but believe that a victory in itself is a conclusive stage of mutual interaction that facilitates a give and take scenario. The Lord God has been good and benevolent in his blessing and teaching of patience and await for all battles are his that overcome the small against those of more power and multitudes of many. As with the revolution, the thought that prevail is to be free and was and is uppermost in all thoughts of man, woman and child. As with tempered steel we bend but we arise and fight on.

As a true patriot we are the protectors of those small, young, old and we forget not God’s promise of life with health and abundancy and the fairness of decision by trial, mediation and verdict. Also, that the securing of liberty has costs and those that stand on stance of ill will, will be fought, protested and negotiated fairly as in the case of Elk Grove Unified School District vs. Newdow.

In relation to the case submitted to the Supreme Court for consideration of petition with the complaint of violation of constitutional rights and infringement of the act. In effect Newdow gave challenge as to the preposition of the school transferring and teaching his daughter to submit to reciting the Pledge of Allegiance because of referral and reference to “Under God” since he is an atheist and does not believe in God.

Also, in this case was Sandra Banning (Mother) who filed an inter alia to intervene and have the case dismissed. But as stands the finding concludes that her sole parental rights does not hinder or prevent his challenge or objection and her restrictive wish to not have her daughter as a party to the case. Further holding that he has the right to instill his belief and wish to her in regard to religion.

I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
13

But based on the Family’s Court Newdow does not have authority to act upon her behalf as either as a next friend or as a parental decider. As decided by the Ninth Circuit, the decision by the Supreme Court was reversed and allowed the infringement of rights pertaining to exposure to any religious content which was done by certiorari to hear additional plea.

The case or lawsuit was originally filed as Newdow vs. Unites Congress, Elk Grove Unified School, et al in 2000. In 2002, the ruling of the United State Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit relayed that the wording in itself “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance serves as an endorsement for religion and thereby violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. In further judgment, in the year of 2004 the Supreme held that Michael Newdow did not have the right to act as a noncustodial parent nor does he have the standing to bring a suit on behalf of his daughter.

In the year of 2005, a case was appealed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California enjoining the school district defendants from continuing the practice of leading children in pledging allegiance to “One Nation Under God”. Case was later appealed to the Ninth Circuit under Newdow v Carey and was reversed.

Anything levied against the Constitution is presented as a challenge as to the legitimacy of an action that is thought to violate rights. Therefore, presentation has to be submitted to the Federal level and since only Congress can make said determination the right of levy can only be appealed to the United States Congress. If in fact the act is satisfactorily proven as an infringement on civil rights and as a violation of right to not be exhibited to religion or the matter of practicing religion then this in turn supports the act of dismissal of need to be exposed to said offending act or matter then it parallels and confirm true that violation has occurred. But in the

I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
14

matter of this case, the act of levy was the phrasing of the Pledging of Allegiance with the words “Under God” being the offensive since the parent is an atheist and objected to the conveying of any religious matter to his daughter and exposure to a belief dissimilar to his own.

The first attempt was to the Supreme Court of the United States which was denied by the Magistrate Judge who deemed and judged that there was no violation of constitutional rights and judgment was subsequently supported by District Court and dismissed. As a further appeal a writ of certiorari was made to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit who overturned the judgment with affirmation that a violation of rights had occurred and stood in a violation of the Establishment Clause and further held due to controversy of parental rights that he was a noncustodial parent, under Article III standing has reservitory rights to challenge the acts of exposure to religion because of his view even if they prove contradictory to hers as such the right to further redress for an alleged injury to his own parental interest was granted.

The active challenge of suit on the basis of next friend was disallowed because of his lack of prudential standing and his position as noncustodial parent vs. Sandra Banning as custodial parent and guardian. Therefore, he has standing but not the sole legal custodialship to litigate as her next friend since the family court order has nullified his ability to act and demand.

The fundamental impact that the court’s decision had on American society in general is that it allowed a basis for a continuing scrutiny and judgment to be used as a referral in similar cases and an active presentation to stop and halt a practice on behalf of his daughter’s exposure to religious acknowledgement or participation in religion in school. The ability to opt out became available and rights to hinder a government’s totalitarian attitude toward religion and its

I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
15

active enforcement. Therefore, to be American does not signify the requirement to be a believer in God or be a facilitator and practice of religious acts or verbal acknowledgement.

This case allowed the freedom of choice by the granting of infringement of constitutional rights. But it did not pervert or change the ideology that this is a Godly and Christian nation based and woven on the bible and crusaders of an old era. What it facilitated was the ability to focus on the guarantee of freedom, choice and right to challenge and debate. Further due to the nature of the case it allowed the activating of the Establishment Clause to protect and counter a perceived threat to him as a parent (noncustodial) and his belief vs. the possible unwanted belief he did not want instilled in his daughter.

In effect the ethical concern has not caused a hindrance to the Pledge of Allegiance but a parallel understanding, future support and steadying of a faith and belief in country and man to stand against a perceived wrong and support the right. Summarily, the act is a chosen show of a united face against devouring foes and those who would consequently destroy a nation and people therein by dominance and control. Ethically, it holds true as devised to protect and act as one indivisible front and challenge to retain liberty, justice, mercy, freedom and fairness for all. Ethics being described as moralistic principle is hereby and thereby retained by those whose charge is honor, right and purpose for the people through the people and the further contribution of united codification of rules, conduct and customs.

As such the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance is a deferral to a country based on Christian beliefs and the ultimate honor and privilege to live in a country of freedom even with bittersweet roots it still prevails as a singular purpose of love, indulgence, favor, grace and humility in the face of times of uncertainty. Further it is the axis that the grapple hook has

I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
16

clutched upon and provides the rigidity of discipline to act with favor or not. Ultimately, it is the respectful blood that runs in all true Americans whose avenue is to protect, foil and defeat a foe who pretends to be a friend. This is what the Pledge of Allegiance is to act as one with show of intent to protect, serve, venture and command.

Lastly, as far as the public schools reciting the pledge I feel that they should because I recall making that same pledge in elementary school and was proud to be inclusive in the fight against those who would hinder and destroy this nation, these people and all that has been achieved and further to make them understand the value of a person’s word, honor, thought, integrity, fairness and non-discriminating act and visual acceptance of all that includes free choice and mostly the protected right of freedom.

In honor of the pledge is the interpretation of the Star Spangled Banner whose affiliation with the Pledge of Allegiance is synonymous as water and land. As thus each cannot be without the other.


Star Spangled Banner
(Interpretation and written by Felicia McCaw, a friend to a friend, a foe to foe, a loyalist to loyalist, an educator to educate and a love to a love)

For a wonder so bright that the eye cannot deny as we proudly march one by one to defend a land we love

Even though we lost loved ones to fight for our freedom through the stars as the battle reign we marched in and prevailed with tenacious stand and perilous journey we consistently fight

Over bridges high, low our gallants defended us as a truth, as the bombs paraded the air we fought on with our Flag of Independence charging and leading the fight to be free

Waving today over the land and people that said they would be free

Even from the shore it rose waving defiance and intent to be free from a condescending host that helped pave the way

For as the air breathes over each towering sweep we marched on as the blows rain mightily upon us all with concealed and then with clarity

But a beam of light has appeared in its richness and glory and shines forth the Flag still stands and may it continue over the land and people that said they would be free

Where is the one who so valiantly swore that the whipping so deserve would be received with the havoc, war and destruction would leave a home and country no more

Blood of both has fled forth of foe and enemy and left their mark amongst the many

Refuge they have none save as a hireling and slave they will become

We shall come as true terror in the night and give no chance to flight and be known the gloom is your own grave

But again the Flag states we defy the boast and foil the charge for it stands over the land and people that said they would be free

Therefore, let it be forever when the right to be freeman shall stand back to back and fight for their beloved home, land and the end of war’s hate and desolation




REFERENCES
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. (2017, February 27). Retrieved March 01, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow

The American's Creed. (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2017, from http://www.ushistory.org/documents/creed.htm

The Star-spangled Banner. (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2017, from http://www.ushistory.org/documents/banner.htm

A. (n.d.). Pledge of Allegiance, Our Flag of the United States, It's History and Meaning, Freedom Documents. Retrieved March 01, 2017, from http://www.screamforfreedom.com/freedom_documents/pledge_of_allegiance.php

Connor, J. (2015, March 20). Laura Ingraham Equates Arabic Speakers To Skinheads In Pledge Of Allegiance Rant. Retrieved March 01, 2017, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/20/laura-ingraham-arabic-skinheads-pledge-of-allegiance-_n_6910562.html

The Pledge of Allegiance. (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2017, from http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

(n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1624.pdf

ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. V. NEWDOW. (2004, March 24). Retrieved March 01, 2017, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1624.ZS.html

The Pledge of Allegiance: An Unconstitutional, Unethical Oath. (2015, January 19). Retrieved March 01, 2017, from https://thezephyrlounge.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/the-pledge-of-allegiance-an-unconstitutional-unethical-oath/

Reid, B. (2014, May 12). Massachusetts Supreme Court Decides Pledge of Allegiance Case. Retrieved March 01, 2017, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-reid/massachusetts-supreme-cou_b_5311538.html

Magna Carta. (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2017, from http://www.ushistory.org/documents/magnacarta.htm

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" Speech. (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2017, from http://www.ushistory.org/documents/i-have-a-dream.htm

Lincoln's House Divided Speech. (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2017, from http://www.ushistory.org/documents/housedivided.htm

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death. (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2017, from http://www.ushistory.org/documents/libertydeath.htm

Declaration of Independence. (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2017, from http://www.ushistory.org/documents/declaration.htm

United States Constitution. (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2017, from http://www.ushistory.org/documents/constitution.htm

The Monroe Doctrine. (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2017, from http://www.ushistory.org/documents/monroe.htm

Bill of Rights and later Amendments to the United States Constitution. (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2017, from http://www.ushistory.org/documents/amendments.htm

George W. Harkins to the American People. (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2017, from http://www.ushistory.org/documents/harkins.htm

Daniel Webster's Seventh of March Speech. (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2017, from http://www.ushistory.org/documents/seventh_of_march.htm

The Economic Bill of Rights. (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2017, from http://www.ushistory.org/documents/economic_bill_of_rights.htm

The Origin and Meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance - Freedom From Religion Foundation. (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2017, from https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/18510-the-origin-and-meaning-of-the-pledge-of-allegiance

New laws on ethics, Pledge of Allegiance set to take effect. (2016, August 27). Retrieved March 01, 2017, from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/27/new-laws-on-ethics-pledge-of-allegiance-set-to-tak/

Ballentine, S. (2016, August 28). New laws on ethics, Pledge of Allegiance set to take effect. Retrieved March 01, 2017, from http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/missouri/2016/08/27/new-laws-ethics-pledge-allegiance-set-take-effect/89492170/

Thompson, M., Bardi, J., Lienhard, J., Hudson, P., & Ardiente, M. (2014, September 02). Over One-Third of Americans Support Removing Under God from the Pledge of Allegiance. Retrieved March 01, 2017, from https://americanhumanist.org/news/2014-08-over-one-third-of-americans-support-removing-under-g/

Liu, J. (2004, March 18). Under God? Pledge of Allegiance Constitutionality. Retrieved March 01, 2017, from http://www.pewforum.org/2004/03/19/under-god-pledge-of-allegiance-constitutionality/

Ask not what your country can do for you (Kennedy's inuagural address). (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2017, from http://www.ushistory.org/documents/ask-not.htm

(n.d.). Retrieved from http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/11/05-17257.pdf