make clear that board refers to the local board of education, as opposed to state board (which refers to the state board of education). In NJ, local boards are elected (usually but perhaps not always in November)
The local superintendent, on the other hand, is hired by the local board. David M. Healy is currently superintendent of the Matawan-Aberdeen school district, but in March he was offered a position as superintendent of the Toms River school district by the Toms River board and seems to be planning to leave Matawan-Aberdeen for the Toms River position. I suppose the styling "in his capacity as" means that the name of Healy's successor will be substituted for Healy's name in the suit, when and if he moves to Toms River
It is less clear to me why the defendants are named as the school district and the local superintendent. The state law refers to the local board, which hires the local superintendent and sets policy for the local district. This may reflect a weakness of the suit. I have been unable to determine what steps plaintiffs actually took in February, but both the timing and the styling of the suit might suggest a failure to attempt all possible administrative remedies before filing. Notable in particular is the lack of any specific reference to district or local board policy, which ought have been uncovered in the course of seeking administrative remedy
Another weakness of the suit seems to me the claim that doechild wishes to say the pledge. Insofar as the statute cited says "pupils who have conscientious scruples .. shall not be required to render such .. pledge," a natural rejoinder might be "What prevents doechild from rendering the pledge but omitting the words under God?" -- for surely if a child has the right to refrain entirely from the pledge, on the grounds that a portion offends conscience, the child has a right to recite a portion of the pledge, refraining from the two words that offend conscience. That particular approach would likely to pass generally un-noticed, hence would attract little attention, positive or negative
The complaint unfortunately also incorporates a number of irrelevant matters, such as reference to unenforceable laws in states other than New Jersey or reference to the collapse of the Soviet Union, having no immediate bearing on the issues of New Jersey law and practice. The reference to the Maryland constitution is particularly infelicitous, since the provision cited was directly and explicitly invalidated by the Supreme Court in Torcaso v. Watkins over fifty years ago; it is certainly a waste of time to incorporate such matter, and it may be counter-productive, insofar as it forces the court to spend time on arguments about relevancy which are certain to be resolved against the defendants. And, of course, Matawan-Aberdeen itself is in the New York metropolitan area, which is perhaps one of the most culturally diverse metropolitan areas in the country
I would myself prefer to see the two words in question removed from the Pledge, but I think there is little chance of removal by judicial process. The courts generally seem to regard "under God" in the Pledge and "In God We Trust" on the coinage as conventions that contain no actual doctrinal stances, that do not require affirmation or denial of any actual doctrinal stances, and that do not reward or punish any actual doctrinal stances. The prospect is worse when we have such a rambling complaint
= new reply since forum marked as read
