|
United States Supreme Court
The state of West Virginia made civics classes mandatory in public schools, "for the purpose of
teaching, fostering and perpetuating the ideals, principles and spirit of Americanism. . . ." Students
were required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of class, while maintaining the stiff-arm
salute. Children who disobeyed were dismissed from school and could then be charged with truancy. Action
could be taken against their parents on the grounds that their children were "unlawfully absent,"
and the parents faced penalties of thirty days in jail and fines of $50. Walter Barnette was a member
of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose beliefs are often at odds with majority opinions and practices. Barnette
asserted that forcing his children to salute the flag violated the commandment not to worship any graven
image. The Supreme Court ruled that the compulsory flag-salute law violated the First Amendment guarantee
of freedom of belief, conscience, and expression. The court rejected state arguments that Barnette’s refusal
to salute interfered with the rights of other students, or that compliance was necessary to make students
better citizens. Invoking the "clear and present danger" doctrine again, the justices denied
that this refusal was disruptive. They also agreed that national unity and good citizenship are desirable
as ends, but only as long as the state uses persuasion and not compulsion to achieve this. This law went
beyond persuasion, went beyond censorship; it actually required students to profess a belief in the United
States government. States cannot compel patriotism, the court ruled, and it is absurd to try.
Does this mean that the state and society are powerless to influence opinions, actions, or the common
language of their members? Does the court say individuals have absolute rights to determine their own
actions under the Bill of Rights? Both of these questions are addressed in the majority decision, as are
guidelines for the state to follow. Be aware of two items. The court based its decision on freedom of
speech, not freedom of religion. This is important for later flag-salute and flag-burning cases. Finally,
look at Justice Frankfurter’s impassioned dissent, which calls for common sense and judicial restraint.
According to Frankfurter, who should change unwise laws? What is more important, the interests of most
citizens or the consciences of a few people? How does he feel about striking down laws because of constitutional
challenges?
|
