08-18-2016, 05:00 AM
The decision about the pledge is Barnette v. West Virginia. It's well worth reading, and useful synopsis is here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Vir...._Barnette.
Justice Jackson said, paraphrasing here, that the most fundamental element of the constitution is that no official can prescribe what is orthodox in political, moral, religious opinion. And one should remember that this was decided in 1943, when the desire for national uniformity ran very high.
Curiously, a lot of this stuff does not apply to immigrants (sorry davester) who have no "right" to be here, even if they came under a quota or visa program, and for whom expulsion is not considered a criminal punishment. Thus they do not qualify for legal or constitutional protections in immigration hearings--for instance, they have no Miranda rights. (An implication of this is that Trump's idea of banning Muslims, if passed by the legislature, would probably be upheld as legal.)
Justice Jackson said, paraphrasing here, that the most fundamental element of the constitution is that no official can prescribe what is orthodox in political, moral, religious opinion. And one should remember that this was decided in 1943, when the desire for national uniformity ran very high.
Curiously, a lot of this stuff does not apply to immigrants (sorry davester) who have no "right" to be here, even if they came under a quota or visa program, and for whom expulsion is not considered a criminal punishment. Thus they do not qualify for legal or constitutional protections in immigration hearings--for instance, they have no Miranda rights. (An implication of this is that Trump's idea of banning Muslims, if passed by the legislature, would probably be upheld as legal.)