Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So when the news broke
yesterday that the House, citing the nation's religious origins, voted to "protect" the Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges that it would have been a front-page post in a few hours. But after coming home from a town hall meeting in SF I don't see one, nor a diary, so I am staying up late into the evening to bring this to y'alls attention.
So yesterday The House of Representatives
citing the nation's religious origins, voted Wednesday to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges who might try to stop schoolchildren and others from reciting it because of the phrase "under God."
The legislation, a priority of social conservatives, passed 260-167. It now goes to the Senate where its future is uncertain.
This legislation goes so far that it will limit the freedoms of Americans to go to federal court and challenge the words "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance on the basis of religious bias.
Opponents said the legislation, which would bar federal courts from ruling on the constitutional validity of the pledge, would undercut judicial independence and would deny access to federal courts to religious minorities seeking to defend their rights.
"We are making an all-out assault on the Constitution of the United States which, thank God, will fail," said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Damm straight it's an all-out assault on the Constitution. This legislation puts the validity of the Constitution in question actually!
If congress can mandate which issue I, or anyone, can bring to court then I have lost my pursuit of liberty. It doesn't matter if I agree with whether or not the words "Under God" should be in the pledge. What matters is the fundamental understanding that if I so choose to disagree with the principle that it may infringe upon my and others personal liberties that I have a right to challenge that belief in court!
Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn had this to say
We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage," said Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn. "It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God.
Once you say that one issue is not a valid argument that can be heard before the courts, before it ever reaches the court, you open the doors to a whole host of issues that can be considered invalid to our "spiritual" heritage. Where do you draw the line? Oh yeah the Constitution draws the fucking line.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Hello!!!! Hellooooo? Earth to people of the US Congress How can educated men and women who hold such great positions of power even begin to debate an issue such as this that is dead upon arrival!
Section 8, Article 1 of the Us Constitution, which lays out the scope of legislative power states
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Did you read all of that? Maybe you have it memorized, well I just read it a few times over and no where does it state that part of the scope of the House of Representatives involves usurping the Constitution by the means of limiting the issues in which federal courts can hear.
To add
Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who sponsored the measure, said that denying a child the right to recite the pledge was a form of censorship. "We believe that there is a God who gives basic rights to all people and it is the job of the government to protect those rights."
Hey Todd, your bullshit legislation censors me, and millions of other Americans. This legislation denies our right to have our concerns heard in a court of law established by the Constitution. Did you think about that? Well based on comments about this legislation "thinking" is not something held in high esteem by you.
Much like Laura Bush remarked about her husband
George is not an overly introspective person. He has good instincts, and he goes with them. He doesn't need to evaluate and reevaluate a decision. He doesn't try to over think. He likes action.
yeah he likes action, like those damm activist judges, just doing their job! If the judges would just deflect any form of judgment on any issue they would be rewarded with a
"heck of a job" approval.
Arrggg...Activist judges. I hate that fucking phrase. But leave it up to the Republicans to coin a term that sticks into the heads of those that are not "overly introspective."
Well to conclude, here once again is Me. Jefferson
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
To the representative from Tennessee, do your effing homework!