West Virginia State Board of Education

It under bearable that at that place are received unalienable rights that we, as human beings, possess. These rights digestt be, or should never be, taken inter earthal from us. Of course, there discombobulate been m some(prenominal) a(prenominal) great crusaders who piddle fought with e actuallything they owned to make sure that we kept those rights. The less(prenominal)on West Virginia read get along with of knowledge v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, is a case that very expresses the beliefs and interests of the clock time. The case reached the US autonomous Court after there was bulky controversy on both sides of the debate.It just so happened that three days in the beginning this case, in 1940, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of the Minnersville School dominion v. Gobitis, 310 U. S. 586, that it was necessary for every school learner to stand to drink and pledge eachegiance to the keel. The run of saluting and pledging, along with the tenet of American h istory and ideals for the purpose of teaching, fostering and perpetuating the ideals, principles and spirit of Americanism, and increasing the experience of the organization and machinery of the government. 1 The justices voted 8 to 1 for the Minnersville School regulate to delineate teachers to salute and pledge to the pin, leaving further Justice Harlan Stone to dissent. thus on January 9, 1942, Minnersville Board of instruction came up with a resolution.This resolution contained recitals that were for the most part from the Courts Gobitis decision. The resolution said that every school student and teacher analogous must salute and pledge allegiance to the flag, and if eitherone disobeyed this law, it would be regarded as an act of insubordination, and shall be dealt with accordingly. 2 This meant that they would be immediately be expelled from the school, and only be allowed back into the school if they denounce theyre acts and agree to honor the flag as stated in th e resolution.And any such kidskin shall be treated as being unlawfully absent from school during the time he refuses to comply with such requirements and regulations, and any person having legal or actual control of such child shall be liable to pursuance under the provisions of this article for the absence of such child from school. 3 This parent or guardian is then in jeopardy of bein g given a all right non to exceed $50 and shut away term not exceeding thirty days. This, however, fueled a few sparks, especially among some relatively religious sect of people. Namely, the sect was the shapers Witnesses, which is a division between them and Catholicism.The Witnesses believe in God, as do regular Catholic Christians do, yet they strongly believe that the stipulation imposed be law of God is superior to that of laws enacted by temporal government. 4 Basically, they feel that laws made by mere mortals cant be obeyed when a law of God contradicts it.Their definition of laws fro m God scratchs from a very literal and precise interpretation of Exodus, Chapter 20, verses 4 and 5 5, which says grand shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any relation of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth thou shalt now bow flock thyself to They feel that the flag stands for, or is a symbol, which directly contradicts their view of this content from God.For this reason they refuse to salute the flag. The boy, Walter Barnette, was taken out of class when he refused to stand for the pledge of allegiance. He was accused of disrupting the class, of being obnoxious, and of being a threat to field security. No matter how lots of an overreaction this was, we have to call this happened in the stratum 1943, about the time the Second World state of war broke out and at a time nationalism in this kingdom was running high. He belonged to a family of firm-believing Jehovahs Witnesses.His family pleaded t o a District Court of three judges, and argued that they had a right to not stand if they did not require to. They also argued that it was a blatant denial of theyre First Amendment rights, including the granting immunity of religion and the freedom of speech, and that the laws were unconstitutional, violating their due process and friction match protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court of law restrained their enforcement of the resolution the West Virginia separate Board of Education took the case to the US Supreme Court by direct appeal.Once in court by March 11th, 1943, the hearings began. The Board of Education argued that just three years ago the court had resolute that the Board of Education could force the students to stand to salute and pledge to the flag. Since the court had already decided that they were allowed to do this, the people had to abide by the US Supreme Courts decision. Also, the West Virginia State Board of Education argued that since th e job of the schools was to teach them US History as well as Americanism, all they were doing was teaching the students to be good, honest Americans.They argued that there was no residuum between them teaching the students about great Abraham Lincoln and brave stymy Jackson then teaching them to the salute the flag-which would foster a respectable pride for their nation. They also argued that it was a matter of national security to control the masses united. They felt that they had a duty to preserve the national unity, and the only way to make sure this happened would be to make sure there is strong nationalism, which can be heightened be pledging to the national flag, which goes wish well this I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands one nation, under God, indivisible, with improperness and justice for all. The Board of education also argued that the boys parents had the choice of sending them to a private scho ol, instead of the public schools. They said that they didnt have to go to a public school. And since the funds for the public schools come from the state, they had the right to raise the students as they pleased, which included teaching the students to be warning Americans.The Jehovahs Witnesses argued back that the command in the Minnersville School District v. Gobitis was tremendously biased, and was blatantly unconstitutional, since it was an incredible violation of theyre First Amendment rights, which includes the freedom of worship. They felt that since it was in their religion to not salute the flag, they shouldnt be forced to do so. They also argued that the ceremony was too much like the salute Hitler forced his people to do-the salute where the hand is outstretched a little above the heart.Also, it was too much like the fascist obligatory salute. They argued that the idea of the gestures like that was extremely unconstitutional and takes away a ring of our rights that are seemingly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. In the Minnersville School District v. Gobitis (1940), all solely one of the Supreme Court Justices voted that the boards of education do have the right to impose the salute and pledge on the students. The only judge to dissent was the brave Justice Harlon Stone. However, in 1942, a year before the West Virginia State Board of Education v.Barnette case, there was a very interesting turn of nonethelessts. There was a US Supreme Court case, not involved with either of the two flag salute cases, where the court reversed its decision and held the compulsory flag salute as being unconstitutional. Three of the initial judges, Justices Black, Douglas, and Murphy, publicly recanted their decision, making the case live again. The next year, however, they didnt make the same mistake. The Court ruled in favor of Walter Barnette and his family, that forcing people to salute to the flag was unconstitutional.However, their decision was based les s on the Freedom of Religion clause under the First Amendment, but under the Freedom of Speech clause. They decided that it was a form of uttering that they were mantic to perform towards the flag, a symbol of the United States. In this manner, they were outlawing the enforcement of the resolution altogether-you didnt have to have a religious conflict with saluting and pledging to the flag, you could just not agree with the idea of saluting and not do it all. On June 14th, 1943, Mr.Justice Jackson, along with the other 5 Justices of the previous Gobitis case, voted that it was unconstitutional for any board of education, or anyone in the United States, to impose their ideas on anyone in that fashion. The Court voted 6-3 in favor of the Barnettes and the Jehovahs Witnesses. Justices Frankfurter delivered the opinion of the dissenting party. He felt sympathy for the minority in this case, but couldnt get down any constitutional right in their favor. According to him, he warned that minorities can disrupt civil society nd there is NOTHING in the Constitution which subordinates the general civil authority of the state to sectarian scruples. Because of the ruling of the court, a lot of questions and speculations were finally put to rest. It would be decades later before this type of flag case would need to be contested again. However, even in that ruling, the justices sided for the freedom of speech. The precedent was set and it has never been overturned. The West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, was an extremely important case.Because of this case, people began to realize how much of a violation the enforcement of the resolution to salute the flag was. People agnize such a practice cant be enforced, but should only be done in a state of living pride for the country. Also, in a political sense, the people realized that it was sedate wrong to force people to salute the flag. The government thought it was doing the country such a fa vor by making every child in the nation patriotic, but since the utterance was done only because they were told to, it had no real meaning, and didnt necessarily institute patriotism.During the Second World contend (1939 1945), the government was eager to make sure that the union was really united. The bulls eye that someone was saluting the flag raised eyebrows for more than the said reasons. Not only did they disrespect the rules of this nation, but the Jehovahs Witnesses were also thought to have double interests. They thought the Witnesses could easily have been a threat to national security because they could a stirred a revolt amongst those who didnt funding the war.There are a lot of different sides to this case, and all the sides have really good reasons to support their case. Thats what makes this case so challenging to judge. However, I agree with Mr. Justice Jackson and the other judges who voted that Walter Barnette has certain unalienable rights that just cant be t aken away from him. He has the right to stand, sit, or do anything he feels like during the pledge. In his right to sit during the pledge, he is not hurting anyone or violating anyone elses rights by doing so, so in my opinion, there shouldnt be any reason to judge the case any other way.The argument that the nation would not be united if they didnt all salute the flag is outrageous. First of all, the students arent saluting the flag because of there incredible sense of pride, but merely because they have to. Second of all, if the government forced us to all stand straight at the same time and recite a national poem glorifying the nation at the national flag (sounds very Hitler-ish, doesnt it), then the very reason that millions have so much love and pride for this country will vanish with that freedom.We have to date that we cant force people to like something, they have to want to like it. In the case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, the judges d ecided that the board of education could not force any student to salute the American flag and recite the pledge of allegiance. This was a case where the very existence of the United States was at the hands of these fine justices as we know it. If it wasnt for the extremely knowledgeable justices that judged the case, we would have alienated something profoundly special.