student, not with the parents of that student and certainly not with the State. This is no less true today than it was in 1943: Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self-interest. Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people’s elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions. These laws must, to be consistent with the First Amendment, permit the widest toleration of conflicting viewpoints consistent with a society of free men. Barnette, 319 U.S. at 644, 63 S.Ct. 1178 (Black, J. and Douglas, J. concurring). I believe this opinion is demonstrably wrong and merits en banc consideration. 1 . The pertinent part of Florida Statute § 1003. 973) (<HOLDING>). See also Elk Grove v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 8,
holding that student has no fundamental right to participate in high school athletics holding that during police interrogation right to remain silent must be invoked unambiguously holding that a student has the right to remain quietly seated during the pledge recognizing that davis was concerned only with the right to counsel and not the right to remain silent holding that the rationale of davis applies equally to a defendant who has waived his rights and later ambiguously invokes the right to remain silent during  interrogation