House Blocks Court on Pledge Case Ruling

[DelawareValleyDem]

WASHINGTON - The House passed legislation Thursday that would prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on whether the words "under God" should be stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance

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

[Mountainman]

1. How is that possible? I think the Supreme Court decides what is

Constitutional. The Congress makes the laws and the Supreme Court interprets the laws. I think I remember something like that from school many years ago.

[neverforget]

2. One Nation Under Bush Divided, With Liberty and Justice for the Rich.

[olddad56]

18. I have no problem with the 'under God part'...

But they really ought to think about dropping that 'liberty and justice for all' bullshit. At least for the time being.

[WillyT]

3. It's Not Possible, It's Just All They've Got Left !!!

Petty little pissants!

:mad:

[tom_paine]

13. Imperial Amerika is a Lawless Third-World Nation

The "law" is whatever the Ruling Party says it is.

Period.

[onenote]

4. does a lot more than protect "under god"

Here's what the bill says: `No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance, as defined in section 4 of title 4, or its recitation.'.

In other words, not only can you not challenge the wording of the pledge (even if Congress decides to change it to refer, for example, not just to God, but to Jesus), but you can't bring cases that raise a question concerning the recitation of the pledge, which means if a school principle or teacher wants to mandate the recitation of the pledge, or give detention to a student who refuses to stand for the pledge, etc., there's nothing that can be done. Its completely outrageous.

onenote

[dansolo]

23. And that's what will kill it

Three little words: "or its recitation." Even if you could argue about Congress' authority over the Supreme Court, they can, and will, strike down this law as unconstitutional. This can be framed as purely a freedom of speech issue. By attempting to pass a law that restricts freedom of speech vis-a-vis the pledge, it is a blantant violation of the First Amendment. If this were allowed to pass, then Congress could pass the same type of legislation to prohibit the Supremem Court from hearing any number of cases relating to free speech issues, like flag burning or even other political speech, like protests.

[Zynx]

5. This has been done before

And the Supreme Court nuked it 9-0. I forget what case it was.

They don't like laws that attempt to strip their authority.

[onenote]

6. interesting parallel to today's florida case

Striking down the Schiavo legislation on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the constitutional separation of powers doctrine.

onenote

[Eloriel]

7. Glad to hear that -- my first thought was --

Uh oh. Is this yet another Constitutional crisis brewing?

[liveoaktx]

8. What is the bill number for this? I want to see how my Rep voted

[onenote]

9. h.r. 2028

[liveoaktx]

10. Driving me nuts-WHERE online can one look up the Vote rollcall?

[Cocoa]

11. thomas.loc.gov

but not updated yet...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR02028:@@@X



In the meantime, the AP has Michigan's roll call...

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/business/index.ssf?/base/news-18/1095967742146830.xml&storylist=mibusiness

Democrats — Conyers, N; Dingell, N; Kildee, N; Kilpatrick, N; Levin, N; Stupak, N.

Republicans — Camp, Y; Ehlers, Y; Hoekstra, Y; Knollenberg, Y; McCotter, Y; Miller, Y; Rogers, Y; Smith, Y; Upton, Y.

[yellowcanine]

12. Dipshits are only trying to overturn 200 years of SCOTUS precedent,

What they are basically saying is that the SCOTUS does not have the right to review laws passed by Congress for constitutionality. Of course they do and this has been accepted for 200 years until now.

[AcesFull]

14. This is declaring war on the Constitution!!!

Art 3, Sec2:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

The Congress is asserting this rarely-used authority for WHAT????!!!!

A f*#$&king dogmatic pledge!!!

This is it. I have had it. I REALLY can't believe this.

I have never taken any psych drugs in my life, but this may be the start...

[Bake]

15. This is patently unconstitutional and will be smacked down.

Congress through the years has frequently tried to pull shit like this, and Congress always loses. Go waaaaaay back to Marbury v. Madison (the first case every law student reads), in which Chief Justice Marshall famously declared, "It is distinctly the province of the Court to SAY WHAT THE LAW IS." (That may not be an exact quote, but the "say what the law is" part is verbatim.)

The Pukes are just hilarious. Congress cannot limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court when the Court's jurisdiction is established by the Constitution. In fact, it is the ONLY court whose jurisdiction (and whose very existence) is established by the Constitution.

Bake, Esq.

[Bake]

16. OH, and even right-wing justices don't like it

when Congress tries to tell them what they can and cannot do. Scalia would personally smack this one down.

Bake, Esq.

[ThomCat]

17. This is PURELY a delaying tactic.

The court will have to go through the (lengthly time consuming) motions of getting this new law declared unconstitutional before they can get back to deciding the other cases.

[Shallah Kali]

19. What a load of Freedom Fries!

This is just a way for congress to make it look like they are doing something good when not actually doing anything actually constructive! To heck with the environment, the exporting jobs, excessive health care costs & reimportation of drugs, not to mention actually properly funding homeland security! They voted to keep the word god in the pledge so everyone should vote for these nitwits.

[Roy Robertson]

20. It's cynical election-time posturing, like Bush I and the flag.

Look at the Michigan vote above. Straight party line. It's a way of painting the Republicans as pro-God, and pro-Pledge of Allegiance, and the Democrats as against all these wonderful things, and motherhood and apple pie, too.

Any principals that get stomped on along the way are just so much collateral damage. Do you wonder why this "issue" arises now, just before the election? They pulled the same trick a month or ago, with the Defense of Marriage Act.

I doubt very much that they give a fig about either issue.

[RobertDevereaux]

21. These folks are insane!

[Roy Robertson]

22. opera queen?

Just curious...

Roy