House votes to shield "under god" from court chall

[Tzeentch]

yahoo news story

House Blocks Court on Pledge Case Rulings

45 minutes ago Add Politics - U. S. Congress to My Yahoo!


By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The House, in an emotionally and politically charged debate six weeks before the election, voted Thursday to protect the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance from further court challenges.


AP Photo



The legislation, promoted by GOP conservatives, would prevent federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from hearing cases challenging the words "under God," a part of the pledge for the past 50 years.


Democrats said majority Republicans were debasing the Constitution to force a vote that could hurt Democrats at the ballot box.


Supporters insisted Congress has always had authority to limit federal court jurisdiction, and the legislation is needed to protect an affirmation of religion that is part of the national heritage.


The bill, which the House approved, 247-173, has little chance of advancing in the Senate this year, but it laid down another marker for politicians seeking to differentiate themselves from their election opponents on volatile social issues of the day. Other "wedge" issues that have come up or may arise before the election include gay marriage and flag-burning.


In June, the Supreme Court dismissed, on a technicality, a 2002 federal court decision that the religious reference made the pledge unconstitutional.


Rep. Todd Akin (news, bio, voting record), R-Mo., who wrote the amendment on legislation before the House on Thursday, said the outcome could be different if the high court rules on the substance, or "if we allow activist judges to start creating law and say that it is wrong to somehow allow schoolchildren to say 'under God' in the pledge."


In such a scenario, Akin said, the courts will have "emasculated the very heart of what America has always been about."


But Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said, "We're playing with fire here, we are playing with the national unity of this country" by undoing 200 years of federal judicial review and letting each state make its own interpretation of constitutional law.


The vote paralleled another in July, when the House voted to prevent federal courts from ordering states to recognize same-sex unions sanctioned in other states.


"Far from violating the 'separation of powers,' legislation that leaves state courts with jurisdiction to decide certain classes of cases would be an exercise of one of the very 'checks and balances' provided for in the Constitution," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the Judiciary Committee (news - web sites).


But many Democrats said the real objective of Thursday's debate was to force them into an unpopular vote just weeks before the election. Aside from the constitutional issue, a large percentage of Americans, and almost all members of Congress, think "under God" should stay in the pledge.


"This bill has been brought to the floor to embarrass some members, so I respect whatever decisions they have to make in light of the motivations behind it," said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. In the end, 34 Democrats voted for the bill and six Republicans opposed it.


"This bill is a dramatic assault on the courts and individual rights, wrapped in phony patriotism. This is election-year grandstanding at its worst," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.


A closer vote was on an amendment by Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., that would have returned the legislation to its original form, under which lower federal courts were barred from ruling on the pledge but the Supreme Court retained its authority.


There is no direct precedent for making exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, said Rep. Judy Biggert (news, bio, voting record), R-Ill., who backed the original bill but opposed the changes.


"The issue today may be the pledge, but what if the issue tomorrow is Second Amendment (gun) rights, civil rights, environmental protection, or a host of other issue that members may hold dear?" she asked.





"Under God" has been part of the pledge since 1954, when Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed a law amending the pledge to include the phrase.

___

The bill is H.R. 2028.

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

(SUBS 8th graf 'In such ...' to correct that Akin referring to courts, sted Congress)

Hooray! At last we have a bill which shits of the bill of rights and the separation of powers simultaneously!

[Admiral Valdemar]

VICTOLY FOR DEMOCRACY!

Nice to see the American way kept on form: a stinking pile of hypocritical, ignorant shit nothing like that hype makes it out to be.

[Alyrium Denryle]

This law itself will be struck down by the courts... But if it doesnt.. we are all fucked.

[Admiral Valdemar]

This law itself will be struck down by the courts... But if it doesnt.. we are all fucked.

Correction, you are. Us in the free world will just feel sympathetic.

[Alyrium Denryle]

This law itself will be struck down by the courts... But if it doesnt.. we are all fucked.

Correction, you are. Us in the free world will just feel sympathetic.

When I said "we" in implied "us americans"

but, this will be bought up as a 14th amendment case, and will be struck down.

[Frank Hipper]

There's a very quiet revolution going on in this country, and fundie grandstanding over "heritage" and such is a smokescreen for it....

Wasn't it Karl Rove who said he wanted to see a Federal Government so small it could be "drowned in a bathtub"? Or was it another one of the rightist "think-tankers"?

[Admiral Valdemar]

I find "think-tankers" to be a misnomer given the lack of cognitive ability in these people.

[Imperial Overlord]

When democracy takes a hit in the most powerful country in the world, it isn't good for the rest of us.

[sketerpot]

There's a very quiet revolution going on in this country, and fundie grandstanding over "heritage" and such is a smokescreen for it....

Wasn't it Karl Rove who said he wanted to see a Federal Government so small it could be "drowned in a bathtub"? Or was it another one of the rightist "think-tankers"?

I'd like to point out that anyone who claims to believe in minimal government and the government giving official recognition to someone's religion is a hypocrite, and a fucking moron to boot. The two are not related.

[Talon Karrde]

Hooray! At last we have a bill which shits of the bill of rights and the separation of powers simultaneously!

Wow... never seen this fallacy before.

Show me where in our Constitution it states that we must "seperate church and state." This is a bullshit claim. The Constitution guarantees that it will not elevate any religion above another. Obviously this must be the case considering the founding fathers laced early important document, including the Declaration of Indepence, with comments referring to God.

How does the word "god" hurt anybody? Interpret it any fricking way you want. Interpret it as Allah, intrepet it as Jehova, interpret as Buddha, interpret as YOURSELF for crying out loud.

Hell, why is it EVERY word that even mentions anything beyond the material world is immediately considered to be wrong and out of place? This is the bullshit movement of the ladder half of the 20th century... and that's my rant for the day.

[Edi]

Hooray! At last we have a bill which shits of the bill of rights and the separation of powers simultaneously!

Wow... never seen this fallacy before.

Show me where in our Constitution it states that we must "seperate church and state." This is a bullshit claim. The Constitution guarantees that it will not elevate any religion above another. Obviously this must be the case considering the founding fathers laced early important document, including the Declaration of Indepence, with comments referring to God.

How does the word "god" hurt anybody? Interpret it any fricking way you want. Interpret it as Allah, intrepet it as Jehova, interpret as Buddha, interpret as YOURSELF for crying out loud.

You're a fucking mindless, fundie-cocksucking assgoblin imbecile, Karrde.

The Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion <snip>

This clause prohibits any laws that will establish any religion above others for any fucking reason, and you and I both know that the god reference in the US Pledge of Allegiance and on US money refers to the Christian God, and pretending otherwise is dishonesty of the worst order and insulting everyone's intelligence. But then again, you always have been a mindlessly fundamentalist, dishonest little shit. Would you be happy if the Pledge read "One nation, under Satan"? Or "one nation, under Kali"? Or "one nation, under Zeus"? Or "one nation, under Ukko"? Or under any of the other hundreds of gods from dozens of different religions other than the Judeo-Christian one? You'd be screaming bloody murder, is what.

Hell, why is it EVERY word that even mentions anything beyond the material world is immediately considered to be wrong and out of place? This is the bullshit movement of the ladder half of the 20th century... and that's my rant for the day.

You forgot to add the words "being added to the definition of the country" right after the "material world" part. Any mention of any religious power, purported god of any stripe etc does not belong anywhere near the definition of a secular state, which the USA is, even if its people are religious. Putting that religion in there means establishing a theocracy, or the foundation stones for building one, and from what I've seen of their behavior, the fundie assholes in the US who are pushing for all this God crap into government (Asscroft, Moore and others) are no better than the Iranian ayatollahs. Cut from the fucking same cloth, they just worship a different invisible sky pixie.

The point is, you have NO RIGHT to use the state to ram your religious shit down anybody else's throat!

Edi

[SirNitram]

This is the bullshit movement of the ladder half of the 20th century... and that's my rant for the day.

No. That was your outright lie for the day.

"State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists, 1808.

[Elfdart]

Actually, Congress can make certain cases and issues outside the jurisdiction of the courts. Railroad strikes come to mind. So the courts would have no say if this piece of shit passed the Senate and was signed by Numbnuts.

Karrde, try rereading the First Amendment and use some logic. If any government institution compels citizens to pay homage to a god -any god- they are violating the law.

[Bugsby]

And the thing is, it doesn't even suggest "any god." It espouses a very specific image of God. First, it calls this god "God." Judaism and Christianity are the only religions that use this title. Also, it says the nation is "under God," which evokes imagery of omnipresence and omnipotence, again chacteristics of the Christian God. It also suggests that there is only one god, throoughly snubbing any polytheistic religion like Hinduism.

Although it doesn't come right out and say "under the Christain God," those two words, "under God," create a mental image of god incompatible with the viems held by Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and pretty much any other major world religion. You can bicker about the vagueness in the langugae all you want, but the implications are clear: "under God" is an endorcement of Christianity.

[SyntaxVorlon]

Someone remind me why the American public despises politics. I can't seem to recall the reason.

[Rye]

How does it undermine the islamic view of God? Allah isn't it's name, it just means God in arabic, a christian talking in arabic would refer to it as Allah too. And since islam is submission to god, being "under" such a being wouldn't be in contradiction to it at all.

Not that it isn't a reference to the christian god, we all know it is, even if we wanted to interpret it ad hoc to a vague monotheism and not christianity. Christianity and Islam are peas in a pod as far as I'm concerned, the pledge shouldn't offend muslims (religiously, at least) was the only point i was making.

[Guardsman Bass]

Someone remind me why the American public despises politics. I can't seem to recall the reason.

We don't despise politics, only "activist judges."

Couldn't find any constitutional basis for what the Congress has done; does anyone know what the law they used to make this case "hands-off" to the Court was?

[Stormbringer]

We don't despise politics, only "activist judges."

Put down the crack pipe.

Couldn't find any constitutional basis for what the Congress has done; does anyone know what the law they used to make this case "hands-off" to the Court was?

That's stood up, none.

SCOTUS has struck down several of these sorts of attempts. The last one being in 1997 I think. It won't last two seconds.

[Stravo]

Hello Mr. Kaarde, your parrot is calling:



You really have no independent thought processes do you? You have neatly spouted almost every fallacy in regards to the Founding Fathers and Seperation of Church and State.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Show me where in our Constitution it states that we must "seperate church and state."

Show me where in our Constitution it states that we must have "a right to personal privacy".

Oh, wait, it's not there. Guess we don't deserve the right to privacy then.

[Stormbringer]

Show me where in our Constitution it states that we must "seperate church and state."

Show me where in our Constitution it states that we must have "a right to personal privacy".

Oh, wait, it's not there. Guess we don't deserve the right to privacy then.

Actually, the intent of laws limiting the right of the government to access to your personal home and property sure seems to me to set up a right to privacy to me.

[Guardsman Bass]

We don't despise politics, only "activist judges."

Put down the crack pipe.

I forgot to add the eye roll.

Couldn't find any constitutional basis for what the Congress has done; does anyone know what the law they used to make this case "hands-off" to the Court was?

That's stood up, none.

SCOTUS has struck down several of these sorts of attempts. The last one being in 1997 I think. It won't last two seconds.

[Stormbringer]

We don't despise politics, only "activist judges."

Put down the crack pipe.

I forgot to add the eye roll.

Sorry.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Show me where in our Constitution it states that we must "seperate church and state."

Show me where in our Constitution it states that we must have "a right to personal privacy".

Oh, wait, it's not there. Guess we don't deserve the right to privacy then.

Actually, the intent of laws limiting the right of the government to access to your personal home and property sure seems to me to set up a right to privacy to me.

Ah, but it isn't implicitly stated, and so according to our friend Karrde, it doesn't exist.

[Guardsman Bass]

Hello Mr. Kaarde, your parrot is calling:



You really have no independent thought processes do you? You have neatly spouted almost every fallacy in regards to the Founding Fathers and Seperation of Church and State.

Well, he IS the village idiot.

Although I might add that quoting Jefferson on separation of church and state would have little tie-on to the Constitution's official stance on Church and State, since Jefferson was not a participant in its creation.