Approves measure meant to protect ‘under God’ phrase from activist judges...
If I remember correctly, didn't some activist judges in the 50's insert the "Under God" phrase in an attempt to combat Communism?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Yeah, that's it. It was an "activist judge".
I just love how that epithet has become so ingrained that now it's the default assumption.
This was an act of Congress, not some "activist judge". It was bullied through in the McCarthy era, because obviously any congressman who wouldn't vote in favor of it must be a godless communist.
(Sorry, this type of legislative BS is a hot-button issue with me.)
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
If you have an "activist judge" macro on your computer. . . you might be a conservative. Or a redneck. Or both.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The House is not geared to take the long view on any issue. I suspect also that one effect of a strong Executive branch is that the other branches become much more jealous of their own turf. Hence the cawing about judicial over-reaching -- it impinges on the turf of the Legislative branch.
I still like Robin Williams suggestion:
One nation, under Canada...
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
KarlEd,
You aren't some Commie, activist poster, are you?
The activist judge comment from the article bothered me too, which is why I phrased my response the way I did. I was unaware that the change was made by Congress, but it's irrelevant to my feelings on the matter. The pledge, that served our country for 60 years without the words "under god" works just fine for me.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:One nation, under Canada...
*snicker*
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
As a southerner I want "Indivisible" removed from the pledge as it is a deliberate spit in our faces.
=P
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
As a northerner, I also want indivisible removed, as we can leave you guys behind at any time Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's nothing in the constitution that restricts the government from spiting southerners Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hum. You know, it's just possible this might backfire. As I understand it, state courts would still be allowed to rule. So the next time a local court rules the PoA unconstitutional, the Supreme Court can't overrule them, as happened last time, because they have no appellate jurisdiction. Wonder how fast this might get repealed?
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
While I'm just as patriotic as the next person, I've always found the whole idea of the flag salute kind of silly. Why am I expected to pledge my allegiance to a piece of cloth? I would much rather pledge my support and allegiance to the founding documents of the nation - the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - which are at least something substantive, rather than just a symbol.
Which brings up another question that has always bothered me - people get all het up over flag-burning, but whenever I ask those people whether they would get as upset if someone burned a copy of the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, I usually get a funny look and a comment to the effect of, "Why would that bother me? It's just a piece of paper." Well, no, it's not "just" a piece of paper. Once or twice, as when I suggested that the city where I used to live pass out copies of Declaration and Constitution as well as little flags at the Fourth of July celebration, there were suggestions that I might be a Communist or something.
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand why wanting people to know the underpinnings of their nation would make me a Communist.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: KarlEd,
You aren't some Commie, activist poster, are you?
The activist judge comment from the article bothered me too, which is why I phrased my response the way I did. I was unaware that the change was made by Congress, but it's irrelevant to my feelings on the matter. The pledge, that served our country for 60 years without the words "under god" works just fine for me.
Hmm, and in re-reading your original post, I should have realized that. Sorry.*
[* Had I realized that when I posted, I'd just have posted the correction of facts and not ranted on word choice. ]
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Spoken like a true activist...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:As a southerner I want "Indivisible" removed from the pledge as it is a deliberate spit in our faces.
No kidding.
The Southerner thing comes out at odd moments. I realized the other day that when I read Little Women at age 9, I didn't realize that the war Mr. March was off at was the civil war. It couldn't have been the civil war, because the reader is clearly supposed to be hoping for Mr. March's side to win, and the Marches clearly lived in New England.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
This is so wrong on so many levels, including having people pledge their loyalty to a flag, including asking anyone to pledge their loyalty at all - especially school children who likely have no idea what they are pledging.
quote: "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."
So wrong. We don't honor God by forcing people to pay lip service to God.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm far, far more disturbed by the tinkering w/ jurisdiction than by any affect this will have on the pledge. It's a horrible thing to do.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah, that struck me as pretty bad - although i am not sure I entirely understand it. If you felt like explaining it, I would be grateful.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The constitution allows Congress to set the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
Typically, this is used to set the requirements for bringing a suit in federal court instead of state court and is based on policy concerns: how concerned are we that a state court will show favoritism to its residences weighed against the increase caseload in federal court. They also do this with respect to habeas corpus, which allows federal courts to review convictions after they are final and all appeals exhausted, weighing caseload and finality of decision against convicts' rights.
However, every now and then someone tries to use it by subject matter to try to take an issue - usually a constitutional issue - out of the courts' domain. Besides the practical problems KoM pointed out (many people don't realize that most general jurisdiction state courts can hear any federal question), it's also an attempt to end-run the Constitution.
Rights are only meaningful to the extent of their remedy. If the only remedy for an unconstitutional act is a court order to end the act, then removing the ability to take a decision to court is effectively removing the right itself.
That's supposed to be very hard for a reason. Although there are certainly issues I think the courts have overstepped their bounds on, I don't want the underlying structure destroyed in an attempt to correct the problem.
Especially when it's used on a stupid issue like this.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, Dag.
Wow. That is bad. If I am understanding you, the House has just decided that the (federal)courts can't decide on the constitutionality of pledge laws. So what is preventing them from bypassing the courts altogether on anything?
"We pass law x. We also decide that the federal acourts have no jurisdiction over Law x".
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Thanks for that, Dag. It's the most lucid take on this issue I've read so far.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Wow. That is bad. If I am understanding you, the House has just decided that the (federal)courts can't decide on the constitutionality of pledge laws. So what is preventing them from bypassing the courts altogether on anything?
First, it's not clear at all that this exercise of jurisdictional power is constitutional. off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of decent arguments against it, including the doctrine of equal protection. If the only thing denying someone access to the courts is the particular right attempting to be protected, that distinction might not be constitutional. Also, the basis of judicial review is that when courts interpret the law, they interpret all the law. A law that contravenes the constitution is simply not a law.
Say a teacher is fired for not enforcing the pledge. She sues under the due process clause, essentially stating that the reason for firing her wasn't good enough (that's what substantive due process means). In making that claim, she will essentially argue that she was fired for doing something she's not allowed to do. Whether Congress has removed the court's jurisdiction or not on the pledge, the court is still in the position of having to enforce the school's firing of the teacher. If it can't find constitutional grounds to do so, it can't enforce it. I don't see how Congress's jurisdiction rules change this one way or the other.
Second, this has always been considered somewhat of a nuclear option, because both sides would LOVE to have some issues exempt from federal review. I suspect many reps would have changed their vote if they thought the Senate had a hope in hell of passing this. Which doesn't excuse their behavior in the least - in my mind, that just makes them dishonest meddlers with the foundation of our system of government.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
Dag, if this bill passed, couldn't the courts find it unconstitutional?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, but I don't know that they would.
Courts have a way of protecting their own power, though.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
That would be funny.
Congress: "The courts have no jurisdiction over laws about the pledge."
SCOTUS: "That law is unconstitutional."
Congress: "It doesn't matter, because you have no right to judge this law."
SCOTUS: "But the law that takes away our right to judge that law is unconstitutional."
And around and around we go.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
It would seem to make more sense to simply put the pledge in the constitution (make some sort of amendment supporting it). I'd think it would have a better chance of passing that way, and you wouldn't be screwing with the powers of the courts.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
If there is any significant opposition at all, it would be much much harder to do it that way. Congress can pass the law with a simple majority. To make a Constitutional Ammendment they would need to pass it through both houses with 2/3rds majority, then get ratification from 3/4ths of the state legislatures individually.
I'm not saying it couldn't be done this way, but I think it's an issue that probably wouldn't make it through the process.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Anyone really think this is anything more than an attempt to raise the appropriate hackles in time for election season?
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
Karl...its true that getting an amendment passed requires more agreement...but it just seems in that case it would be easier, because for the majority (though of course not all) of people the pledge itself is not controversial...while taking powers from the court (in the way that they are doing it) is rather controversial.
Though maybe I'm wrong and it wouldn't make it through, I would just think more people would support it that way than trying to mess with court powers.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
]