Michael Newdow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michael Arthur Newdow (born June 24, 1953 in New York City) is a Sacramento, California attorney and emergency medicine physician. He is best known for his efforts to bar public schools in the United States from leading recitations of the current version of the Pledge of Allegiance because of its inclusion of the phrase "under God".

Newdow is a self-declared atheist, and an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church.[1] In 1997, he started an organization called FACTS (First Amendment Church of True Science), which advocates strong separation of church and state in public institutions.

Contents

[edit] Personal background

Dr. Newdow grew up in the Bronx and Teaneck, New Jersey, from where his nominally Jewish family moved in 1960. He graduated from Teaneck High School.[2] He told Brown Alumni Magazine that he can’t remember ever believing in God, saying, "I was born an atheist."[3]

After graduating from high school, Newdow attended Brown University, where he received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Biology in 1974. He then attended the UCLA medical school, earning his M.D. in 1978. He has worked as an emergency room physician at numerous hospitals, and holds medical licenses in California and five other states.[3]

Newdow later enrolled in the University of Michigan law school, earning a law degree in 1988. He passed the bar exam in 2002.

[edit] Pledge of Allegiance

Newdow is best known for the lawsuit filed on behalf of his daughter against inclusion of the words "under God" in public schools' recitals of the United States' Pledge of Allegiance. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the phrase constitutes an endorsement of religion, and therefore violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the decision was later overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds, citing that Newdow did not have custody of his daughter and therefore did not have the right to bring suit on her behalf, nor did he meet the Court's prudential standing requirements to bring the suit on behalf of himself. Newdow filed suit again regarding the same issue, but this time on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the course of Newdow's previous suit, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that Newdow did not have standing to bring his lawsuit[4], but the other plaintiffs did have standing. Based on the previous ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the judge ruled that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.[5][6]

In November 2005, Newdow announced he wants to have "In God We Trust" removed from U.S. money. In a November 14, 2005 interview with Fox News's Neil Cavuto, Newdow compared "In God We Trust" appearing on United States currency with segregation (specifically separate drinking fountains), saying, "How can you not compare those? What is the difference there? Both of them [whites and blacks] got equal water. They both had access. It was government saying that it's okay to separate out these two people on the basis of race. Here we're saying it's okay to separate two people on the basis of their religious beliefs."

In June 2006, a federal judge rejected this lawsuit, on the grounds that the minted words amount to a secular national slogan, and they do not dictate anyone's beliefs. Newdow stated that he would appeal the ruling.[7] Although, it should be noted that Aronow v. United States was decided on the same grounds in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the lower court was required to return the same ruling, likewise the Ninth Circuit does not traditionally overrule previous Ninth Circuit rulings.

On December 4, 2007, Mr. Newdow argued before a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit to remove both "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, Roe v. Rio Linda Union School District, and "In God We Trust" from US currency, Newdow v. Lefevre.

In a 2006 interview on the day that the United States House of Representatives passed the Pledge Protection Act[8], Newdow told WERS-FM's David Goodman, "A few hours ago, the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America voted 260 to 167 to completely gut the Constitution of its separation of powers and violate numerous other clauses because they thought it was important enough to keep 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't think people would've done that for our political heritage or anything else. They did it because they want God in their government because it stands for a religious view that they adhere to, and they want to see that religious view espoused by government, which is exactly what the Establishment Clause forbids".

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Lucas, Greg. "Atheist dad ready for date at top court." San Francisco Chronicle, 2004-03-22
  2. ^ Kelly, Mike. " One nation under ... ?", The Record (Bergen County), June 30, 2002. Accessed May 5, 2007. "But Newdow, who reportedly was nicknamed "Noodle" at Teaneck High School, has forced us to take a hard look at the 31-word Pledge of Allegiance that far too many of us recite by rote and without questioning what it says."
  3. ^ a b "Mr. Newdow Goes to Washington", By Zachary Block, Brown Alumni Magazine, May-June 2004. Retrieved on August 26, 2007
  4. ^ Newdow v. Congress of United States, 383 F. Supp. 2d 1229, 1239 (E.D. Cal. 2005)
  5. ^ US judge rules pledge unconstitutional. Taipei Times (2005-09-16). Retrieved on 2007-03-25.
  6. ^ Federal judge rules Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. Chicago Defender (2005-09-16). Retrieved on 2007-03-25.
  7. ^ Federal Judge Nixes 'In God We Trust' Lawsuit. FOXNews (2006-06-12).
  8. ^ Pledge Protection Act of 2005. U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved on 2007-03-25.

[edit] External links

Languages