posted on September 23, 2004 08:13:31 PM new
House Blocks Court on Pledge Case Rulings
57 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.
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).
The Democrats cited an 1803 Supreme Court decision in which the court asserted its role as the arbiter of what the Constitution says. But Sensenbrenner said the Constitution gives the high court original jurisdiction only in cases affecting foreign officials or when a state is involved. In other appellate cases, he contended, the court is subject to congressional regulations.
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.
posted on September 23, 2004 08:32:05 PM new
Gee, Libra, you're saved!!!
Brainwashing kids to your way of thinking must really make you happy. Just like the communist countries, start 'em young so they all believe the same thing, like good brain dead little robots.
May your "god" have mercy on your bigoted ways.
But if it makes you feel good to shove your religion down someone else's throat like "christians" have a habit of doing, you must be wetting your pants by now!
When you wake up in the morning do you face the flag and say the pledge? WHY NOT?????
Now, I hope they make it a rule that every place of employment has their employees say the pledge before they start work.
I think it should be posted on restroom walls so when you ship you can praise "god".
posted on September 23, 2004 09:15:21 PM new
This is what it is coming down to in letting the states decide... this way some moron can't bring suit to the Supreme court because they heard the pledge being said in school, I know of no child that is forced to say it or "under God"...
First the homosexual marriage, now this... seems like the congress is getting its act together.
posted on September 23, 2004 09:33:27 PM new
It was first placed in the pledge in 1954 due to the godless communists. The US thought that including the words under god would help US citizens.
Did anyone know that a Jehovah Witness is free from saying the pledge at all? In their faith, they pledge to no other god.
They won that right in a Supreme Court case. Interesting isn't it?
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on September 23, 2004 09:39:11 PM new
Yeager-this is a free country. If you don't want to say the Pledge of Allegiance then you don't have to. There is no where it says it is manditory....
Prevent Bigotry through Education.