House OKs bill guarding Pledge from courts

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jul 20, 2006.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    AP

    you'd think there's nothing else going on save a few shark attacks (remember when *that* was the big summer story?). Rome is burning, and all the GOP wants to do is plant flowers to match.
     
  2. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #2
    Yeah, I was just about to post this story myself.

    Two quotes from the story that really get me:

    Rewrite history? Basic rights? What the hell are they talking about? The people have the "right" to shoehorn God into politics? Having rewritten history in 1954 to insert the "under God" phrase, we'd be "rewriting" it again to take it out?

    Honestly, have you ever heard such brain-damaged logic? Either these guys don't believe it themselves, and are just using this as a wedge issue (as many here have said lately)...or if they do believe it, it shows they can't think their way out of a paper bag.

    I neither know nor care which it is, because either way it's frightening.
     
  3. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #3

    He's the rep for the district I live in, and I'll definitely vote against him.
     
  4. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #4
    I wish Democrats would make more of an issue of this, and for a change frame the argument in their own terms, such as bills like this forcing belief in a Christian God upon non-Christians. They need to make a case that this is the kind of thing that Middle East theocracies do.

    Instead, look at Steny Hoyer's Democratic "rebuttal": he thinks this violates separation of church and state, but he supports the pledge as is. Whoop-de-****. :mad:
     
  5. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #5
    Another example of our esteemed leadership working hard on critical
    matters.
     
  6. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    Of course this is wedge issue. It's also smoke and mirrors.

    Also, if anyone here truly believes that that there is one single real Christian in politics, I've got a bridge for sale. ;)
     
  7. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #7
    How can this possibly be constitutional? Does Congress have the power to remove any issue from the purview of the courts, not least of all, challenges based on the Constitution itself?
     
  8. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #8
    No Sugar, We have a war,another war starting,, A Nuclear nation firing missiles,a terrorist nation wanting nukes, spending out of control,manufactoring based being moved to communist China, and our Republican Congress is working on the pledge of allegiance? what the hell our these republicans thinking? So busy selling out our country that it has to resort to these games so it can have something to run on? Discraceful.
     
  9. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #9
    No, of course not. Far as I know, never been done in the history of this country.

    Let's say this passes the Senate and becomes "law". Someone will challenge it all the way up to SCOTUS. Then several things can happen:

    SCOTUS upholds it. Possible, with the court's current composition. And if upheld, it sets up a hugely dangerous precedent that could be the final nail in the coffin for this republic. Separation of powers will be effectively dead, and Congress will be able to take authority away from the courts for any reason that pleases them.

    SCOTUS overturns it. Then the neocons (if still in power) start hollering for a constitutional amendment that achieves the same thing. And even if the heavens fall and that passes, it'll set up another constitutional challenge, because both Article III and historical precedent have established the Supreme Court as the final arbiter in constitutional law.

    Personally, I doubt even a very conservative Supreme Court would ever uphold this. You think they'd vote to give Congress that kind of power over them? The Constitution has taken quite a bit of trampling lately, but that would pretty much reduce it to asswipe.

    Edit: I suppose I could see a third alternative: no one immediately challenges the "law", the Democrats come into power in the fall, and they repeal it. Problem with that is, it doesn't settle the matter of constitutionality.
     
  10. stillwater macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Location:
    Rowley, MA
  11. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #11
    Exactly. This law is an attempt to prohibit the judicial branch from exercising the very duties prescribed to it by the Constitution itself. Seems to me, a constitutional amendment is required for Congress to exert such control over another branch.
     
  12. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #12
    People always seem to forget that part. The problem with leaving it in is the implication that you have to believe in "God" to pledge allegiance to this country. Some people would rather do one than the other, but I'd rather everybody get to worship the flag these same people want to protect so badly. I believe in God, but I also believe in a society that doesn't force everyone do believe as it's leaders want to, as the freedoms under that flag were clearly meant to reflect.

    So I don't believe in one nation under God because it isn't.
     

Share This Page