Is there no social conservative grandstanding that the House won’t posture with these days?
The Federal courts have been debating over the Pledge of Allegiance and its “under God” clause for years. Now, if the House were really worried about the Pledge as some sort of — well, as some sort of sacrosanct prayer to God (which, depending on the audience, they hasten to note that it isn’t, since that would be pretty clearly unconstitutional), then they could whip up another Constitutional Amendment to try and protect it. I’d oppose such a move, vehemently, but that at least gets the
issue out on the table.
Or, alternately, they could just pull stuff like this:
The House, 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. […]
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. […] The pledge bill would deny jurisdiction to federal courts, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to decide questions pertaining to the interpretation or constitutionality of the pledge. State courts could still decide whether the pledge
is valid within the state.
Does Congress have the ability to do something like this? Constitutionally, arguably they do. Is it a good idea? Gah. It sets a precedent that lets any future congress decide that some piece of legislation or other activity is So Darned Important that they courts shouldn’t be allowed to rule on its constitutionality. Which just strikes me as a horribly wrong idea, and would give anyone who took thirty seconds to consider what sorts of dunderheaded ideological laws have been passed
by various past parties in power the same impression.
But it seems like the House Republicans are so desperate to rally their conservative supporters for the fall that the long-term effect of such a law and its precedent is way below the radar screen. Which is, to my mind, a perfect reason to give them all the boot.
By the way, the rhetoric involved in all of this is a real hoot. You’d think people were proposing burning Bibles or something.
“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.”
Nobody’s proposing rewriting history, Rep. Wamp. Though it’s worth noting, historically, that the “under God” pledge is only fifty years old, and that lots of kids before that learned the Pledge without that clause.
Supporters argued that the “under God” phrase, added to the pledge in 1954, was intrinsic to the nation’s heritage and traditions and must be shielded from unelected judges. “This is an issue that clearly resonates to what we are about as a country,” said House Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
Of all the issues out there, I find the whole Pledge debate to be wholly unresonent, right alongside flag burning.
And I really am growing to dislike that whole “unelected judges” meme. Federal judges are appointed and confirmed by elected representatives — and are kept from requiring reelection or reappointment just so that they can make decisions that are unpopular with the whims of the day. Or would Rep. Blunt like suggest that, oh, Justice Alito or Justice Thomas should be up for reconfirmation the next time a Democrat holds the White House?
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.”
Which takes the cake, turning this all into a cry about “censorship” — as though a kid couldn’t say the Pledge at home with parents and include whatever prayer or hymn or mention of God they saw fit to include. Or is the argument that kids should be able to say whatever they want, because otherwise it’s censorship? “Allahu akbar!” in the middle of the math test? Is that really what Rep. Akin is
arguing for?
Or is it that some rights and religious expressions are more equal than others, too?