Congress Turns to Most Important Topic
With the world in such a peaceful state these days, corrupt politicians imprisoned, corporate greed brought under control, now that the religious (self)right(eous) have rediscovered the Beatitudes and are loving their enemies and working together for world peace and the elimination of the last few pockets of poverty, Congress can take this comfortable occasion to smooth out the few remaining rough edges of our society.
Yesterday the House came to the most important issue of all: whether the Pledge of Allegiance should include the phrase "one nation, under God." Because really, if you look around, it's the only problem they haven't solved.
Let me comment on this very briefly, this idea of "activist judges" re-writing the law. What these judges are doing is interpreting the Constitution. Seems modern-day "conservatives" are not satisfied with that musty old document, and don't want some pointy-headed, book-reading judges going back and making every law conform to it.
In sum: disrepect for the Constitution that these congressmen are sworn to uphold.
Yes. Thanks, homeboy.
Just like newspapers should not be written by unelected journalists.
Listen, there's a reason judges are "unelected." It's so they can be objective, so they don't have to cave in to every idiotic whim that excites the population. I'm not saying every judge is perfectly objective, or that appointing them makes them apolitical, but the fact that they don't have to run for election does remove them from popular control in a way that is ... perfectly sensible. It's like lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. Those guys don't have to brown-nose the public, they got nothing to lose.
It's weird, isn't it, that God didn't give those rights until some guys got together and appended them to the Constitution in 1791. I mean, God has been managing humanity since -- what was it? -- 4,000 BC, when He created the earth. Or was that 4,000 years ago, well, I forget the exact date. I wonder why He waited all those years to tell people what he wanted. And ... why did He write it into a secular document, authored by mortals?
Tell me, is this really on anybody's list of Things That Are Wrong in America Today?
I mean ... really.
Yesterday the House came to the most important issue of all: whether the Pledge of Allegiance should include the phrase "one nation, under God." Because really, if you look around, it's the only problem they haven't solved.
WASHINGTON - Legislation to bar federal courts from ruling on constitutional issues arising from the Pledge of Allegiance, including the "one nation, under God" reference, passed the House after lawmakers argued that the pledge is linked to the nation's spiritual history.
Opponents countered that such a law, a priority of social conservatives, would undercut judicial independence and deny access to federal courts to religious minorities seeking to defend their rights.
The measure faced an uncertain future in the Senate after the House voted 260-167 on Wednesday.
"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."
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. House OKs bill guarding Pledge from courts
Let me comment on this very briefly, this idea of "activist judges" re-writing the law. What these judges are doing is interpreting the Constitution. Seems modern-day "conservatives" are not satisfied with that musty old document, and don't want some pointy-headed, book-reading judges going back and making every law conform to it.
In sum: disrepect for the Constitution that these congressmen are sworn to uphold.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said that while he supported the pledge, the bill would "intrude on the principle of separation of powers, degrade our independent federal judiciary and set a dangerous precedent."
Yes. Thanks, homeboy.
The legislation grew out of a 2002 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools. The Supreme Court in 2004 reversed that decision on a technicality, but the case has been revived.
Supporters in the House argued that the "under God" phrase, added to the pledge in 1954, must be protected from unelected judges.
Just like newspapers should not be written by unelected journalists.
Listen, there's a reason judges are "unelected." It's so they can be objective, so they don't have to cave in to every idiotic whim that excites the population. I'm not saying every judge is perfectly objective, or that appointing them makes them apolitical, but the fact that they don't have to run for election does remove them from popular control in a way that is ... perfectly sensible. It's like lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. Those guys don't have to brown-nose the public, they got nothing to lose.
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," he said.
It's weird, isn't it, that God didn't give those rights until some guys got together and appended them to the Constitution in 1791. I mean, God has been managing humanity since -- what was it? -- 4,000 BC, when He created the earth. Or was that 4,000 years ago, well, I forget the exact date. I wonder why He waited all those years to tell people what he wanted. And ... why did He write it into a secular document, authored by mortals?
Tell me, is this really on anybody's list of Things That Are Wrong in America Today?
I mean ... really.
6 Comments:
Jim,
The writers of the Constitution never meant to expunge any thought or mention of God from public life. For them, "religion" meant denomination. They didn't believe the government should establish and favor any denomination as the British royalty had done with Anglicanism. It was only with the Warren court in the mid 20th century that the Constitution was misinterpreted to mean that the existence of God should not be acknowledged by the government. The existence of God has been acknowledged by most of mankind throughout history and throughout the world today. It's a fact only denied by a fringe in our world today.
While you may not think acknowledging God is unimportant, there is scant support for your position historically. A couple of examples:
USSR: Tried agressively to discourage belief in God. Descended into an evil regime and no longer exists.
US: Supreme Court ruled that morning prayers could not held by public schools. From almost that precise moment, the US public school system has been in decline.
Here's some words I didn't write but which contain valuable insight:
"For those who wish to remove any mention of the Creator from American public life, the Declaration of Independence can be an embarrassing document. Many secularists would want to keep its contents out of sight, for right there, towards the beginning of this foundational document in American history, you can hear the birth cries of what could be called a Judeo-Christian nation.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain ‘unalienable’ Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (July 4, 1776; the unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America, emphasis added).
The Founding Fathers knew that human rights do not come from government. Life, liberty and happiness are gifts bestowed by the divine providence of the Almighty Creator of heaven and earth.
Today, there is a belief system masquerading as science that denies the Creator’s hand. Time, chance and a few billion mutations are said to have given man his exalted evolutionary position atop nature’s family tree. Frankly, I want a secularist to explain how man could possibly be endowed with “unalienable” rights by an unguided and purposeless process of evolution.
Though some have tried to suppress knowledge of America’s Judeo-Christian heritage, they cannot escape the founders’ unanimous declaration of a Creator. As Americans celebrated the 230th anniversary of July 4, 1776, they acknowledged their Creator and remembered that with the nation’s first cries, she cried out the name of God."
Happy July
H.A.
For contemplation purposes, here are the beatitudes which Jim referred to:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
H.A.
The writers of the Constitution also said:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (Article 1 Section 2)"
I have a one word comment/reply:
CYNICAL.
Why, yes, Orin, that would be an appropriate comment. And I am trying to think of what is wrong with being cynical in times like these.
Let me hear you explain why it is necessary to pass a law limiting the power of judges on this one thing. Let's hear it. No law about limiting judges in their decisions about victimless drug laws, about unprosecuted corporate crime, about political corruption, none of the things that are actually problems in this country. It's about some monotone ritual that students engage in at school in the morning.
Let me say why I am cynical about this, Orin. These congressmen are wasting important time that could actually be spent solving some real problems; but because they believe the American people are so stupid that they think this is important, they bring this to the floor inistead. That's the reason to be cynical about politicians. The other thing is, it appears that the American people really are that stupid, because they keep electing these guys.
That will make a guy cynical.
JimK
Jim writes,
Why, yes, Orin, that would be an appropriate comment. And I am trying to think of what is wrong with being cynical in times like these.
Let me hear you explain why it is necessary to pass a law limiting the power of judges on this one thing. Let's hear it.
Ok, I'll give it a shot...how about two words?
Self Government
No law about limiting judges in their decisions about victimless drug laws, about unprosecuted corporate crime, about political corruption, none of the things that are actually problems in this country.
First off, there is NO such thing as "victimless" drug offenses, as there is always a victim when someone makes the choice to use an illegal drug. Then there is the so called unprosecuted corporate crime...you would not happen to be talking about WorldCom, Tyco, Enron, etc? True, there always seem to be more of this sort of crime then there are resources to prosecute it...
Political corruption? We humans are weak and easily corruptable. Our government is a reflection of the strengths and weaknesses, and so political corruption ought not to be much of a surprise. It has always been with us, and it will always be with us so long as we are human (sorry, hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that is reality).
It's about some monotone ritual that students engage in at school in the morning.
Yes, I know, and we miss a marvelous teaching opportunity when we allow it to remain as such. I just checked the Montgomery County Libraries collection and they have the following book,
I Pledge Allegiance, by Bill Martin, Jr., Michael Sampson, and Chris Raschka; published by Candlewick: 2002.
in their collection (actually, they have 42 copies). It is a quick read...takes less than 5 minutes. What it attempts to do, and I think it accomplishes that rather well, is help children understand what it is they are saying in the best liberal sense of the word liberal. I recommend this book to everyone...in fact, I think I may volunteer to read to a Kindergarten class again, and this will be the book I start out reading.
Let me say why I am cynical about this, Orin. These congressmen are wasting important time that could actually be spent solving some real problems;
Ok, so it is not important to you...but it is important to me, and to others.
but because they believe the American people are so stupid that they think this is important, they bring this to the floor instead.
I am sorry you feel this way. I suspect more of your fellow citizens actually do understand what is at stake here, even if it is only a "gut" understanding. I understand on the abstract/theoretical level what is at stake here, and why legislative control over the pledge is so important.
For starters, the Constitution of the United States starts out with a Preamble, and states,
We the People
because it recognizes the source of its power; towit: the People of the United States. Now there are some in this country that don't like this or that, but they know that put to a vote, whatever it is that they dislike will get voted down...every time. So, what do they do? They get a lawyer (usually of the ACLU bend, though of late they are as likely to have the ACLU falling all over themselves to represent the aggrieved) and they go to court. Though sometimes conservatives do this, more often than not it is liberals that prefer this as a method of social change.
Don't get me wrong...I like change...I even like social change. What I, and many other Americans simply want is for our elected representatives to "manage" that change for us. While the courts have also initiated social change and have done so with success, more often than not they have had it blow right back in their faces (here I am thinking of social policy that was evolving on abortion, pre-Roe v. Wade, on a state by state basis. The US Supt Ct thought they knew better...what with reading all those penumbras and emmanations coming out of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...then the elected representatives of 50 state legislatures.) And with a US Sup Ct Justice on the bench that thinks US law ought to take lessons from international law, now more than ever is the time to circumscribe the role of the judiciary.
That's the reason to be cynical about politicians. The other thing is, it appears that the American people really are that stupid, because they keep electing these guys.
Well, you might have a case here if US Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA, 4th Dist.) is re-elected...then again, I guess it all depends upon you POV.
That will make a guy cynical.
I am sorry to hear that you feel this way. Self government is not easy, but it gives more people a stake in the outcome of the political process.
Post a Comment
<< Home