'Under God' argued at mock trial

The man challenging the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance's "under God" clause rehearsed his case against two UW law students in a mock trial last night to help prepare him for arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 24.

The mock trial was heard before a packed courtroom in the William H. Gates Law Building, where the higher-than-capacity crowd had to be accommodated by a video feed in another room. Many listened from the back or sat on the floor.

"It's a great opportunity to hear a case that's going to be argued before the Supreme Court by someone who will actually be arguing the case," said Moot Court President Ben VandenBerghe.

Michael Newdow is contending that the Elk Grove School District in California undermined his authority as a father by coercing his daughter to say "under God" daily in the pledge. He argued the suit's legality against second-year law students Annie Swatzel and Michael Kapaun.

Swatzel argued Newdow did not have substantial standing to file the lawsuit on behalf of his daughter, 9, of whom Newdow only has partial custody. Kapaun in turn argued for the constitutionality of the "under God" clause, which was added to the pledge in 1954.

A panel of judges, lawyers and Stewart Jay, UW professor of constitutional law, heard the case. The most notable member of the panel was Justice Richard Sanders of the Washington state Supreme Court.

Sanders commended Swatzel and Kapaun despite the panel's 4-2 ruling against them.

"They did a great job presenting an almost infallible case ... for beginning law students or beyond," Sanders said.

Newdow argued his case at the UW last night as part of a series of mock trials that he has been participating in at schools across the country.

Newdow, who is arguing the case before the nation's highest court on his own behalf, said he is not intimidated by the circumstances. He officially became a lawyer in July, after a 16-year hiatus from law.

"I know I am right about this," said Newdow. "I know I'll win."

Newdow lost a lawsuit with the same claim before the 11th District Court in Miami before moving to California to be with his daughter. There he reinitiated the lawsuit, which was dismissed. He appealed the decision and, in turn, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court's decision.

After he finishes next month's challenge before the Supreme Court, Newdow wants to work on changing the family law practice, starting in California, he said.

Newdow said during follow-up questions that he has sued the government on various occasions, including a lawsuit about the inclusion of an oath to God during the presidential inauguration.

"I admit that I even tried to sue Congress before I learned that I couldn't do that," Newdow said.

During the trial, the judging panel questioned Newdow about his daughter, who lives with her mother and attends church regularly, but the panel acknowledged that the government was infringing upon his right to raise his daughter in the way he pleases.

Protesters outside the law building from the UW College Republicans argued that the inclusion of the word God was a part of the American system.

"God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and every other historical American document," said freshman Jeremy Sandler, a member of the group.

Aaron Schwitters, who was also protesting on behalf of the group, was confident the Supreme Court would overturn the 9th Circuit Court's ruling.