Today in Supreme Court History: July 30, 1956

7/30/1956: Congress enacted a resolution, declaring that the motto of the United States is "In God we Trust." The Supreme Court declined to grant review in Newdow v.Congress, which considered the constitutionality of that motto.

Comments

[JoeFromtheBronx]

In 1864, during the Civil War, the phrase “In God We Trust” first appeared on U.S. coins. President Theodore Roosevelt removed it, finding it in bad taste and perhaps sacriligeous.

The Pledge of Allegiance originally did not have "under God." There was a push in the 1950s to underline that we were not atheistic communists like the Soviet Union. A basic "civic religion" or ceremonial deism would help establishment that fact.

The use of "In God We Trust" as our national motto, statement of belief, would help do that. Many interpreted "God" in a Christian fashion. But, it still had a more ecumenical character.

It is not free from difficulty. Some still, for instance, find it problematic to use it on currency. The combination of God's name with mammon troubles some people.

"God" also has a religious character, especially if we reference our trust in God. People can believe we can trust in God. It is different to have an official statement, in the names of everyone, including those who don't believe in God, that says so.

Lower courts have repeatedly rejected constitutional challenges, sometimes on standing grounds. One answer is that it is too trivial of an act to be a law respecting the establishment of religion.

I personally think it problematic to have Congress make resolutions about God, including suggestions for presidents to encourage us to pray to such creatures. There are more important problems out there. But it is a limited establishment of religion.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

I agree with the idea that government should not be propounding on religion for any reason, but I extend it to everything -- the food pyramid is another good example. Politics dirties everything it touches, and the last thing any religious person should want is to have the government taking sides, even to such a minimal extent as "In God We Trust". The food pyramid has been politically inspired since the beginning, and those decisions continue today. I no longer have a link, but RFK or HHS or MAHA or *somebody* said the quiet part out loud: they want to ban food dyes *only* because they are purely cosmetic and used *only* to make processed food more appealing to shoppers.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Major institution with a lot of power will cause certain problems. They will have "stupid tricks" in various respects. The government, which has popular support, included.

"Politics" means different things, including the "art or science of government." It is not inherently dirty each time it operates. Like industry, business, sports, love, and much else, it is imperfect and messy.

I don't think school lunch programs are bad things and food pyramids would be one place that would pop up. But, yes, food has always been affected by politics. The Agricultural Revolution was a basic factor in the development of ancient civlization itself.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

"Politics" comes from the Greek "poly" meaning many, and "ticks" as blood-sucking insects.

I have read some articles about the food pyramid which seemed to make pretty good cases for its creation being solely inspired to change support for what profited farmers and food producers the most, not for any real dietary science. For instance, and here I am making this up entirely because I do not remember the actual articles well enough, dairy products were included because government price supports led to farmers producing more milk than markets could absorb.

It used to astonish me how many problems "fixed" by government were created by government "fixing" some previous government-created problem. Now it mostly astonishes me that it still astonishes me.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

When is Dave Barry going to write a dictionary? I liked his history of the United States. He should update it one of these days.

In many ways, non-governmental bodies/things have the power, and they are the ones who cause problems. Not just problems, to be clear, just like government.

Others can point to their stupid tricks. You can continue, selectively, to point to the government's.

[Jack Jordan]

President Roosevelt had a very good point. Thank you, Joe, for highlighting that. It seems surreal that Christians would put that slogan on money after what Christ said and did about money changers defiling temples.

Judges who contend that such legislation "is too trivial" to "be a law respecting the establishment of religion" need to pay more attention to the text of our Constitution and to the best and brightest of those who got our Constitution written and ratified.

Specifically regarding Congress's violation of the First Amendment, James Madison and the Virginia Assembly (in the Report of 1800 regarding the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and the unconstitutionality of Section 2 of the Sedition Act of 1798) emphasized the proper analysis:

"The part of the constitution" that is controlling is Article I, Section 8 which limits the power of Congress to “laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" all the "powers" of Congress "and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

"Whenever, therefore a question arises concerning the constitutionality of a particular power; the first question is, whether the power be expressed in the constitution. If it be, the question is decided. If it be not expressed; the next enquiry must be, whether it is properly an incident to an express power, and necessary to its execution. If it be, it may be exercised by Congress. If it be not; Congress cannot exercise it.

The legislation at issue obviously is not necessary to effect any power that the People delegated to any part of our national government. The First Amendment also promptly highlighted that such legislation is egregiously and extremely improper: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Any person who contends the legislation at issue is not "respecting an establishment of religion" obviously does not sufficiently respect the intelligence of the People to grasp the plain meaning the plain text of the Constitution, above.

[Jack Jordan]

Joe, regarding any contention or implication that the legislation you identified is "too trivial" to "be a law respecting the establishment of religion," SCOTUS or SCOTUS justices have sometimes accentuated that the opposite is true (and was seen to be true) by many who wrote or ratified our Constitution. Whether government action constitutes an "establishment" of religion doesn't depend on whether the action seems trivial at the time.

The opinions in Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1 (1947) are illustrative. See, e.g, opinion of Rutledge, Frankfurter, Jackson and Burton, JJ, dissenting:

"Madison was certain in his own mind that under the Constitution 'there is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion.' " As Madison said, "The government has no jurisdiction over" our practices or professions regarding religion (e.g., "in God we trust" or pledging allegiance to a "nation under God").

The Everson dissenters emphasized that the "objection" of Madison, Jefferson and others to "any tithes whatsoever" was that "If it were lawful to impose a small tax for religion, the admission would pave the way for oppressive levies." "Not the amount but 'the principle of assessment was wrong.' And the principle was as much to prevent 'the interference of law in religion' as to restrain religious intervention in political matters. In this field the authors of our freedom [insisted we should] not tolerate 'the first experiment on our liberties' or 'wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents.' "

See also id. fn. 41:

Madison's objection to "three pence" contributions and his stress upon "denying the principle" without waiting until "usurped power had . . . entangled the question in precedents," [ ] were reinforced by his further characterization of the [the legislation at issue]: "Distant as it may be, in its present form, from the Inquisition it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance."

As Madison said of the Virginia legislation at issue in 1785 (and as he would have said of the federal legislation at issue here) it "is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be, in its present form, from the Inquisition it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I am sympathetic to those who warn about treating certain things as too trivial, but, notably, you cite a dissent and Madison, whose views on the 1A ultimately did not win out. For instance, compare his two vetoes involving religious establishments (in his view) to modern-day doctrine and funding of religious institutions.

Justices these days are more likely to quote Justice Goldberg's concurrence in Abington School District v. Schempp:

It is, of course, true that great consequences can grow from small beginnings, but the measure of constitutional adjudication is the ability and willingness to distinguish between real threat and mere shadow.

And do so to uphold much mixture of church and state, including government-supported creches, funding of chaplains, and so on. See also, a footnote in Engel v. Vitale which references "many manifestations in our public life of belief in God."

I am not aware of Justice Black finding "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance problematic though Justice Douglas probably did by the time that decision was handed down.

[not guilty]

It does seem to endorse monotheism, but no harm, no foul I guess.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

That's a lousy way to justify it. It implies God is too unimportant to matter, at the same time it insists on glorification by government is important enough to matter, as if government endorsement is all that matters.

[Jack Jordan]

It's interesting and insightful that a professor who teaches the meaning of our Constitution would highlight Congress's obviously unconstitutional conduct without even trying to even begin address how clearly and egregiously this legislation violates our Constitution.

Article I emphasized that the People vested in Congress only the power to “make all Laws” that are “necessary and proper” to carry out “all” the “Powers vested” in Congress and "all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The legislation at issue obviously is not necessary. The First Amendment also promptly highlighted that such legislation cannot be proper: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."