is there a federal law in colorado that says students must stand for the pledge?

Question

or a website I can go to

A teacher is forceing students to stand for the pleage saying that the law says they have to

side note she is forceing an exchange student to stand he feels he is betraying his country but is scared of having his visa revoked
to those who are wondering he is russian

Answer 1

No, because if it were FEDERAL law, then EVERYONE AROUND THE WHOLE COUNTRY would have to stand, now wouldn't we?

Hey Reignyday - who said anything about liking it or not liking it? And if you love freedom so much, why do you hate people who might actually exercise it?

Hey Trollhair - what do you think freedom IS, you idiot?!

Answer 2

First, there is no federal law, anywhere, that says students must stand for the pledge of allegience.

Recently, a school district in Colorado was sued because the district required students to stand for the pledge of allegience. This, according to one child's father, violated his rights. The case went to the Supreme Court where the court dismissed the suit because the father did not have standing to object (the mother had primary custody, so the father had no right to assert the objection).

The case will likely be on the Court's docket again, but it is starting from scratch.

Some people object to the Pledge of Allegience because of the words "under God."

Others object because the pledge is to the flag, and not to the country, and therefore it is akin to a pledge to a graven (sp?) image. (Note, I pledge allegience to the flag ... AND to the republic -- why pledge the flag and the country, why not just the country).

Because the Court has held that you cannot have a public prayer, or be compelled to stand or sit through such a prayer, it is likely that the court will find that requiring students to stand for the pledge of allegience will pass constitutional muster.

Now, I know that people will disagree, after all, the majority of people believe that the pledge is appropriate, and that standing shows unity. I would suggest that the constitution (and particularly the first ten amendments) are intended to LIMIT the rights of the majority, and to protect the minority from that majority.

Answer 3

If its only the law in Colorado, its not a Federal law. Last I heard, the ACLU would sue just for making students say the pledge. I don't think they care about standing.

robert_dod is not entirely correct. The case thrown out for lack of standing was brought by an Atheist over the words 'under God'. The parents were divorced and the mother had full custody. Requiring the children to stand was not an issue. There may have been another case where it was.

Answer 4

The issue here is much the same as in United States v. Snider, 502 F.2d 645. That court ruled that it is completely unconstitutional to require people to rise for a judge (they still require it though). Here is a partial quote:

“In our view, these are cases of symbolic speech. In No. 73-1939 the defendants declined to participate in the traditional ceremony of rising upon entrance and departure of the presiding judge and were cited for contempt. In No. 73-1938 defendant engaged in hyperbole-- claiming 3 billion dependents on a tax withholding form-- and was charged with a violation of 26 U.S.C. 7205. In the latter criminal tax case we hold the government failed to prove an essential element of the offense. In the contempt case we hold that refusal to rise is not 'misbehavior (which) obstructs the administration of justice' within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 401. In neither case do we find it necessary to decide whether the first amendment bars prosecution. Both convictions will be reversed with instructions to enter verdicts of acquittal

…..
The rising requirement seems to us not essential to the functioning of the court; as such, the failure to rise does not constitute a material obstruction. If the failure to rise distracts others, provokes a reaction on their part or even causes 'a failure to become silent or focus attention on the business before the court,' 468 F.2d at 133, we think the fault may better be resolved by compelling silence and attention than by coercing a gesture of respect. What others do may constitute misbehavior on their part, but it does not justify the finding of criminal contempt as to the person who simply refuses to stand and does nothing more. Of course, improper language or gestures accompanying such a refusal may be separately punishable as contempt.

…..

We are thus led to the conclusion, and so hold, that the mere failure to rise upon command of the marshal in a United States courtroom is not misbehavior within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 401 and does not constitute criminal contempt of the court. To so hold will not, we think, tend to diminish respect for the judiciary and for the administration of justice. We do not envision, as the result of our decision today, disorder flourishing in the courtroom. Instead, we anticipate the custom of rising upon the convening and adjournment of court will continue and become more significant because wholly voluntary. There was a time when an unwary parishioner was tapped by the warden to enforce traditional religious observance, including rising, the bowing of knee and head. The gestures of piety are still observed-- but without coercion.

We have no doubt that the judges of this circuit will continue to maintain order in the courtroom and to conduct business expeditiously. We think they fully share our belief that 'real respect of the citizenry for the judiciary is earned, not commanded.' In re Chase, 468 F.2d 128, 137 (7th Cir. 1972) (Stevens, J., dissenting).

Reversed.”


It is essentially the same issue in your case, symbolic speech. The school cannot require that you pledge allegiance or stand; both are protected under the first amendment’s freedom of speech.

Sincerely, Zach Doty

Answer 5

Even if there was a law, if you don't want to stand then don't. Tell that teacher to look up academic freedom rules which are probably in the school's policies.

Answer 6

First a federal law would be anywhere in the nation, not merley in one state.

But a person can not be forced to say the pledge. They should since if they don't want to support the nation they live in, they need to leave it for one they want to support.

Answer 7

It's not required to stand. I don't know how often they say it but when they do you can stand or not stand and no one should give you any trouble for not standing because it's a freedom of speech I guess.

Answer 8

Federal law applies accross all fifty states. State law applies to the state that created it.

Answer 9

It is a sign of respect. If you don't like having freedom of speech then go and live in Iraq. We don't need scumbags dogging our country.

Answer 10

If you don't want to, then I'd say move to Russia or some Communist country. What are you trying to prove ?