European Stars And Stripes (Newspaper) - September 4, 1988, Darmstadt, Hesse                                Page 10 columns. The stars and stripes William f. Buckley pledge of allegiance differences overblown the Public quarrel Over the pledge of allegiance brings out the worst in political formulations but even so is not an entirely useless Exchange. Just to begin with both sides bus hand Dukakis Are wrong in the extremity of their interpretation of each other s attitude toward the pledge. George Bush implies that Michael Dukakis is indifferent to patriotism which he May be but if he is thai much is not established by his veto of the Massachusetts Bill calling for the compulsory recitation of the pledge in the Public schools. And when Dukakis says that Bush s approval of the Bill demonstrates that he is not i to be president because that approval flouts the Constitution of the United states As interpreted by the supreme court Dukakis is engaged in complementary baloney briefly the court by a narrow majority ruled in 1943 in favor of the Jehovah witnesses who were plaintiffs West Virginia state Board of education is. Barnelle against a Law requiring the recitation of the pledge. The majority Opin Ion was written by Justice Robert Jack son in his wonderful mellifluous prose compulsory unification of opinion achieves Only the unanimity of the graveyards often better read As poetry than As constitutional analysis. There Are so Many ambiguities built into the pledge no one can reasonably interpret it As a Call for the unification of opinion. It is a pledge Jesse Jackson and de Mecs both routinely Lake. Do hey both agree on the meaning of Justice for All the opinion was accompanied by a Rabid Dis sent by Justice Felix Frankfurter. Moreover 1943 was before con Gress in 1954 stuck the controversial words under god into the oath. One must assume that the professional secularists the Acle people for the american Way protestants & others United for a godless Republic Etc. Have protested the current pledge but itis not Likely that Dukakis is going to put the elimination of god from the pledge into his platform. On the other hand Why not there Are plenty of supreme court decisions he could rely on to insist James Kilpatrick that the incorporation of anything at Al religious into the National pledge of Alle Giance is a violation or the first Amend ment. Yet Dukakis tells us that he him self supports saying the pledge. Then he gets into derivative problems. The Massachusetts legislature overrode Dukakis veto. If Dukakis had reasoned correctly what would then have happened is that a Jehovah s witness m Massachusetts or & mad Madalyn Mur Ray Type of god Chaser would have taken the new Law to the supreme court and got it invalidated. But that did not happen. And mean while in Illinois gov. James Thompson signed a Law in All relevant respects the same As the Massachusetts Law and that Law has not been in legalized by the supreme court. Nor As far As we can discover have there been any prosecutions deriving from delinquencies under that Law. It is probably reasonable to put Forward the following generality no governor would gel into trouble with any body if he signed a Bill requiring the pledge. His reasoning could be that just As the court has changed its mind before so is it Likely to do so again. And mean while the Job of the executive is to Tran scribe the popular will. And it is probably reasonable also to put Forward the generality that red while and Biu ism docs less for the democratic candidate than for the re publican candidate. This is not to make an invidious statement but to use one s general intelligence about the extent to which the love of country gels attenuated As you immerse yourself in the ambiguities of modern american liberalism with is penchant for relative values world federalism self doubt self recrimination. When you do you gel a pretty diluted View of what it is about the Ameri can nag that makes other people All tingly. During the Vietnam years protes ters were quite Blunt on the matter to Chi Minh is Jure to win. There Are those of us who dislike Ritu Al incantations worrier than goo morning or sleep  i will zip through my Rosary tonight before sleep it if the air this Summa was t w Eltoff ing but prayer even distracted prayer is different from secular gymnastics be cause every Day we need to remind our selves that we arc sinners and ask cod s forgiveness. Whereas every Day on the secular front we arc reminded of How tormenting it is to have to abide by he cliches of political controversy. I m for reciting the pledge of on the fourth of july and perhaps As an act of self exorcism every time we hear speech in the United nations. Every Day a too often though Bush has the better of the two positions in the current controversy. Dukakis Correct in vetoing state Law on pledge should Public school students be required to recite the pledge of allegiance to the Flag Michael Dukakis says no George Bush says yes. Dukakis has he better of the argument. In political combat almost any weapon is permissible but for Bush to impute a Lack of patriotism to Dukakis is to hit below the Bell. The Issue has Arisen because the Massachusetts legislature enacted a Law in 1977 requiring teachers in Public schools to Lead their pupils in reciting the pledge. Dukakis then in his first term As governor vetoed the Bill. He thought the act was unconstitutional. In that View he was supported by an advisory opinion from his state s highest court. The controversy recalls one of the great landmark decisions in the history of the . Supreme court. To go Back a bit to the 1920s and 1930s, a number of states enacted Laws requiring recitation of the pledge of allegiance in Public schools. The Laws were  times the supreme court refused even to consider their constitutionality such statutes presented no substantial Federal  then came a Case from minors Villa pa., involving a 12-Ycar-old Jehovah s witness named Lillian co bilis. Speaking through Justice Felix Frankfurter with Only Justice Harian Stone dissenting the court ringing by upheld Pennsylvania s hag Salute requirement. It was within the state s Power to use this Means to pro Mote National Unity and Good citizenship. A couple of things happened. Charles Evans Hughes and James Mcreynolds retired from the High court Robert Jackson and Wiley Rutledge came on to re place them. In West Virginia the stale Board of Edu cation adopted a stringent Resolution All children must daily recite the pledge of allegiance under pain of expulsion for insubordination if they refused. Three children of Jehovah s witness families led. By Waller Bam Elte sought an injunction to prevent enforcement of the Rule. A three judge Federal court ignoring the Nobilis decision granted their plea. The stale Board appealed to the supreme court. On june 14, 1943, just three Yean Afler Nobilis the court reversed itself. Jackson wrote the greatest Opin Ion in his Long and distinguished career justices Mur Phy Black and Douglas who had joined the Robitis majority were so impressed by Jackson s eloquence that they changed their minds. Only Roberts Reed and Frankfurter supported the decree of the West Vir Ginia Board. Since its organization two centuries ago the supreme court has issued More than 30,000 full blown opinions. If High school students could be required thread Only 10 of these surely the Case of West Virginia is. Bam Elte would be among them. In the whole of the supreme court reports they would not find a More passionate affirmation of the Freedom of mind in a free society. Public authorities said Jackson May not compel a citizen to utter what is not in his  speech May never be Ever cd in May be restricted Only la prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the state May lawfully  if there is any fixed Star in our constitutional Constellation it is that no official High or Petty can pre scribe what shall be orthodox in politics nationalism religion or other matters of opinion or Force citizens to confess by word or act their Faith  Frankfurter s dissent was As lofty and As passionate As Jackson s opinion for the majority. His theme was the necessity for judicial restraint in striking Down legislative acts. One who belongs to the most vilified minority in history is not Likely to be insensible to the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Were my purely per Sonal Altitude relevant i should wholeheartedly associate myself with the general libertarian views in the court s opinion representing As they do the thought and action of a  but As a member of the supreme court said Frankfurter i am not justified in writing my private notions of policy into the Constitution no matter How deeply i May cherish them or How mischievous i May deem their disregard the Bam Etle decision created an uproar. We were then squarely in the Middle of world War ii. Jackson and his colleagues suffered stinging criticism. Legislatures denounced the opinion. A constitutional amendment was proposed to overturn in. But the bar Meltc court was right in 1943 and Dukakis is right today. A Novorul Onuis Mycol