House Blocks Court on Pledge of Allegiance Ruling

[hardheadjarhead]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040923/ap_on_go_co/congress_pledge_of_allegiance


Interesting. I didn't know they could do that.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Bob Hubbard]

They can't.
Not based on the copy of the Constitution I have.

Supreme Court is the final voice in the law.
Congress can't do that.

Then again, it's just another bit of ruble in the continuing erosion of the document.



"[If] the King can model the constitution at will... his government is a pure despotism. The question then arising is, whether a pure despotism in a single head, or one which is divided among a king, nobles, priesthood, and numerous magistracy, is the least bad. I should be puzzled to decide." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:96


"Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers,
its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." --Thomas
Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

"Supporters insisted that Congress has always had authority to limit federal court jurisdiction,"

This is true, at least in part. I know that the judiciary can be restricted in some ways by legislative decisions, although I'm uncertain as to how much breadth the legislature is allowed in doing so. It's in my class notes somewhere.

"and the legislation is needed to protect an affirmation of religion that is part of the national heritage"

Seriously, do they have this kinda **** in Canada? I think I'm moving to Canada. Where does this guy get off saying this? Protecting an affirmation of religion? Last time I checked, America was about avoiding such legislation. "Religion that is part of the national heritage" my ***.

I'm moving to Canada.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Reminds me of the Heinlein story, "Year of the Jackpot," which contains the headline:

TENNESSEE HOUSE VOTES TO REPEAL LAW OF GRAVITY.

No way in hell that one passes judicial review, even with the likes of Thomas and Scalia on the Court.

 

[Flatlander]

Seriously, do they have this kinda **** in Canada?

Nope! Here, the church and state are completely separated. We even have and/or had gays and diverse religeous backgrounds represented in Parliament.

I'm moving to Canada.

Wear your woolies.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Woolies? Keep in mind, I live in Florida (or, what's left of it).

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Personally, I've been leaning towards NZ myself....

 

[michaeledward]

Political Grandstanding.

Hastert knows Frist isn't going to allow the bill on the Senate floor ... but all those House members up for re-election (and they are all up for re-election) can go and wave the flag ... or use it to smother the non-Christians in their districts.

I applaud the 173 members who voted NAY.

Republicans YEA = 213
Republicans NAY = 6
Republican No Vote = 8

Democrats YEA = 34
Democrats NAY = 166
Democrat No Vote = 5

Independent NAY = 1


My State
Charlie Bass = YEA
Jeb Bradley = YEA ....
(So much for 'Live Free or Die'.)

 

[punisher73]

I guess I'm in the minority here. Whether they can pass legislation like that or not. It is about time the other branches of government have stepped in to equal the balance of power. How many cases has the Supreme Court ruled on where it has gone against popular opinion or previous case history and did what they wanted? If all the powers are supposed to be a check and balance system, then who checks the Supreme Court if not the legislative and executive branches?

Read what seperation of church and state meant to the founders when they wrote it, not what political commentaries say what it should/could mean.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Um...ah...if you're gonna wave the flag, it might be a good idea to understand the Constitution that the flag represents.

Our government was set up so that the Court is absolutely independant from the executive and legislative branches. Moreover, we have judicial review of little things like laws that undermine the Bill of Rights, because the whole idea was that Americans should NOT be able to vote away basic liberties, particularly when they're in a big fat hurry for some reason.

But if you want to do the original Pledge, which was changed by Congress during the Red scares of the 1950s, I might not mind--and neither might the Court.

It was written by an American minister, and here's how it went:

I pledge allegiance to the flag
And to the Republic for which it stands
One Nation, indivisible
With Liberty and Justice for all.

His explicit intent was to support internationalism--at the time, a movement that led directly to the precursor of the UN, the League of Nations--and to give citizens of every country a unifying Pledge that espoused the same democratic principles.

Sorry, but I'm about sick of those posturing fools like Zell Miller and Tom De Lay, who make it far too clear that to their idea of America, nobody who isn't a WASP need apply...

 

[Marginal]

I guess I'm in the minority here. Whether they can pass legislation like that or not. It is about time the other branches of government have stepped in to equal the balance of power. How many cases has the Supreme Court ruled on where it has gone against popular opinion or previous case history and did what they wanted? If all the powers are supposed to be a check and balance system, then who checks the Supreme Court if not the legislative and executive branches?

Read what seperation of church and state meant to the founders when they wrote it, not what political commentaries say what it should/could mean.

Funny you want the founder's intent made clear but you don't want the legislative branch to operate under the checks and balances that the founders introduced. A measure they introduced largely because they knew what a mess the mob could make of things if allowed to institute law with nothing to hold popular opinion in check vs informed opinion.

Along those lines, the courts have rarely operated on sheer whimsy as you imply. Precedent plays a huge role as does the constitution. If lawmakers paid as much attention to that document as they're supposed to, the courts wouldn't have to keep busy striking down nuisance laws and caclulated fundimentalist harassment designed to circumvent constitutional law solely by clogging up the instutional gears. (As good ol' Pat Robertson advocates.)

How is religious freedom acheived by forcing people to pray to Jesus?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

How is religious freedom acheived by forcing people to pray to Jesus?

Simple: their interpretation of religious freedom is just freedom of their religion from all others, as well as from the rules of the Constitution. Not too hard to convince fundies of this definition.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Read what seperation of church and state meant to the founders when they wrote it, not what political commentaries say what it should/could mean.

Perhaps you should substantiate some of these accusations. For example, please say what is so different from the founding fathers meaning of separation of church and state, or please describe how the Court has a history of just arbitrarily doing "what they wanted". You know, something we could actually argue and debate.

 

[Kane]

Here we go again;


Guys, I'm not a full Christian, and I still think they shouldn't even bring it up. Why does anybody care whether "Under God" is in the pledge or not? "Under God" can mean many things. It can mean the universal force or something.

Who cares whether we have the "Under God" part or not. Is it killing anyone? Is it destroying our society? Should we even care? Honestly I couldn't care less, however I think this is such a waste of time to even bring up.

 

[Marginal]

It's just as easy to say, "Well then if it doesn't matter in the least, why insist on tacking it on?"

Somehow, it's seen as VITAL.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Here we go again;


Guys, I'm not a full Christian, and I still think they shouldn't even bring it up. Why does anybody care whether "Under God" is in the pledge or not? "Under God" can mean many things. It can mean the universal force or something.

Who cares whether we have the "Under God" part or not. Is it killing anyone? Is it destroying our society? Should we even care? Honestly I couldn't care less, however I think this is such a waste of time to even bring up.

It's a governmental endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint. This, according to the First Amendment, is not supposed to happen. And you are right, to each individual the word "God" could mean any number of things. But let's carry this thought through: if it's the individual person who determines the meaning of God, shouldn't they also determine whether to include the phrase "under God" in their personal pledge? By not only using legislation to keep the phrase in, but blocking the Supreme Court from doing anything about it, the Legislature is not leaving such decisions to the individual; instead, the government is making such decisions for everyone, and that, as I said before, is not supposed to happen.

And no, keeping the phrase "under God" in the Pledge doesn't kill anyone. Neither does burning a book.

 

[michaeledward]

Here we go again;


Guys, I'm not a full Christian, and I still think they shouldn't even bring it up. Why does anybody care whether "Under God" is in the pledge or not? "Under God" can mean many things. It can mean the universal force or something.

Who cares whether we have the "Under God" part or not. Is it killing anyone? Is it destroying our society? Should we even care? Honestly I couldn't care less, however I think this is such a waste of time to even bring up.

Judge Roy Moore!

 

[michaeledward]

It is with very conflicting emotions that I want to add an example to this discussion.

The Czar of Florida ... the Re-Count Eating Beast of the South ... One of the two ugly step-sisters of the Bush clan (or is that three) ...

Last year, ordered the legislature to create a law to keep Terri Schiavo alive by inserting a feeding tube into her body, against the wishes of her husband.

The legislature in Florida (which is uniquely similar to the impotent body in Washington), rolled over like an 8 week old puppy, to the whims of the governor and the 'religious-right' and wrote the law. The governor then went on to sign the law with the blood of her husband.

The Florida Supreme Court said yesterday that the Florida legislative body, and the Florida Governor can not go about the business of writing laws just to get around the rulings of the court. How did they put it ... oh yeah :

"an unconstitutional encroachment on the power that has been reserved for the independent judiciary."

So, we have a clear example as to what would happen ... and still the Red State Representatives are Grandstanding ... Doesn't that embarrass anyone in the Republican Party? Don't you think we should change the pledge to read:

"With Liberty and Justice for All, who are just like us ... and to hell, quickly, with anyone else"?


I, truly, find it very sad that Michael Schiavo had to fight this battle in public. My thoughts and well-wishes go out to him. And I hope that no one ever finds themselves in the position he has been in for the last many years.

Mike

 

[SenseiBear]

...How many cases has the Supreme Court ruled on where it has gone against popular opinion or previous case history and did what they wanted? ...

One of the points of our constitutional republic was to protect our rights against the whims of the masses.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Not totally true. A consequence of the Civil War was that the Supreme Court became the sole and final arbiter of constitutional controvercies. (1)

Woodrow Wilson wrote in 1908 (2) "that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers."

For a nicely detailed look at the Supreme Court, check out http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/supcthist.html

Having read that, I think regardless of what Congress passes in this issue, the Court will just nullify it as Unconstitutional.


(1) Forrest McDonald is Distinguished Research Professor of History at the University of Alabama and author of sixteen books, including States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876; The American Presidency; The Presidency of George Washington; and The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson. He was named by the NEH as the sixteenth Jefferson Lecturer, the nation's highest honor in the humanities.
http://www.townhall.com/phillysoc/Mcdon2.htm

The third and most potent prospective check upon state power--and also upon federal power-- was the Supreme Court. From a constitutional perspective, the truly revolutionary consequence of the Civil War and Reconstruction, one that was entirely unforeseen, was the virtually unanimous acceptance of the previously challenged idea that the Court was the sole and final arbiter of constitutional controversies.

(2) Woodrow Wilson, Constitutional Government in the United States (New Brunswick, N.J.:Transaction Publishers, 1908/2002),P.178