Thursday, July 20, 2006

I guess they didn't have anything better to do.

The US Congress is considering legislation to prohibit federal courts from "attacking" the Pledge of Allegiance. Yes, it's the "under God" bit again. Y'know, the bit Eisenhower threw in because.... Well, frankly, I'm not sure why he bothered. Just as I'm not sure why Congress is bothering now.
"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."
D'you think he knows many of the Founders were Deists, not evangelical Christians? So, in other words, their God was a very different one than is currently thrown around?
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.
One wonders why this God didn't bother to give the same rights to homosexuals as heterosexuals. One also wonders if Rep. Akin would think God gave the same rights to blacks as whites -- after all, once upon a time, blacks were considered inhuman.

The problem with the bill, of course, is this:
Davison Douglas, a professor at the William and Mary School of Law, said constitutional scholars are divided over whether such congressional restrictions on judicial review would pass constitutional muster.
Certainly, Congress couldn't stop the Supreme Court from hearing these sorts of cases. The federal courts? It ain't clear; and, really, where would Congress argue the point except in a court? Something tells me judges might look askance at attempts to legislatively determine what kinds of cases they can and can't hear.

No comments: