I Pledge Allegiance To The Frat...

Judges uphold ban on Pledge of Allegiance

A federal appeals court refused to reconsider its June decision to ban the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools Friday, reaffirming that the phrase "under God" is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

Federal officials said they expect the U.S. Department of Justice will appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The Justice Department will spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag," said Attorney General John Ashcroft. "We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism through the time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the pledge."

Friday's ruling denied a Bush administration request for an "en banc" rehearing by a full panel, or 11 of the 9th Circuit's 24 judges.

The original ruling was decided by a three-judge panel, with two of the three overturning Congress' 1954 addition of the religious phrase.

What is noteworthy is that the decision is limited to public schools - which is fine, really, since private schools, not being government funded (unless of course the school voucher lobby has its way) are therefore not bound by the constitutional separation of Church and State. However, the following quote is mildly troubling to me:

Circuit Judge Diarmuid R. O'Scannlain, in a dissenting opinion joined by six colleagues, said the court made a mistake in not allowing a full 9th Circuit panel hear the issue.

"Most assuredly, to pledge allegiance to flag and country is a patriotic act," O'Scannlain wrote. "After the public and political reaction last summer, it is difficult to believe that anyone can continue to think otherwise."

While I would agree that to pledge allegiance to flag and country is a patriotic act, O'Scannlain, with all due respect to His Honor, seems to be missing the point here - no one is saying you shouldn't pledge allegiance to flag and country - it's the phrase "under God" that offends the Constitution.

Secondly, his remark that about the political and public reaction suggests that decisions as to what is patriotic should be shaped by popular opinion. Patriotism comes in many forms, and in any case should not be a dynamic concept, defined by what the public or the majority thinks. That way leads to the same kind of thinking that produces black-or-white statements like, "If you're not for us, you're against us." The lack of sophistry in such thinking in a jurist is quite disturbing.

"Prosecution is applying for the web site to be forfeited..."

Feds Seize Internet Domain Names

Federal agents routinely seize property allegedly used in the commission of a crime, anything from a drug dealer's car or speedboat to a hacker's computer.

In a series of raids in recent weeks, the Justice Department has extended such grabs to property that might seem esoteric but worry civil libertarians - Internet domain names.

In one case, the government took over Web sites that it said peddled bongs, roach clips, rolling papers and other paraphernalia used in the consumption of illegal drugs.

Prosecutors also acquired, in a plea agreement, a site called isonews.com whose owner was charged with selling special chips that let pirated titles run on videogame consoles.

...

Among issues that remain unresolved in the courts is whether a domain name constitutes property, or a contract the owner has with the domain name registrar - the company that provided the name. If the former, a domain name could indeed be seized like a car, house or computer.

In the past, domain name registrars have sued to ensure that their offerings are not considered property. Otherwise, Overly said, ``they would find themselves at the heart of no end of litigation.''

The registrars involved in the head shop investigation either declined to comment or did not return telephone calls.

Domain transfers have in the past occurred as a result of criminal or civil cases, but Overly said the courts would ultimately decide the issue.

Now this is interesting... from a purely legal standpoint that is, whether or not there is settled law as to what domain names actually are. We speak of buying and selling domain names like indeed they were property in themselves, but are they only just contracts? But then again, domain name registrations can be shifted between registries at the application of the owner - does that constitute the breaking and reforming of a new contract or simply moving the custodianship of the domain from one bailee to another?

Legal geek mind working overtime...