yeah, there's separation of the 3 branches of gov'

[minx]

*minx dives headlong into the political fray*scary

 

House votes to prevent court review of Pledge

By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff | September 24, 2004

 

WASHINGTON -- The House yesterday voted to strip federal courts of the authority to hear cases challenging the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, a dramatic move meant to thwart what the bill's sponsors call "activist" judges on the federal bench.

 

The measure, approved 247 to 173, is part of an effort by Republicans to restrict the courts' actions on several hot-button issues. In July, the House approved a measure that would limit the courts' ability to review cases involving the legal definition of marriage. Another bill pending in Congress would restrict the courts' authority to rule on cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments.

 

"This is the beginning of a trend, and it's unprecedented in terms of the breadth of what they want to do," said Terri Schroeder, spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the measures.

 

During a heated floor debate, conservatives contended that they had to act preemptively to prevent courts from removing the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. The US Supreme Court this year threw out a lower court ruling that deemed the pledge unconstitutional, but the high court did so on the grounds that the man who brought the case did not have legal standing. So the question of the constitutionality of reciting the pledge in schools remains open.

 

"If we allow federal judges to start creating law, and say that it's wrong to somehow allow schoolchildren to say 'under God' in the pledge, we have emasculated the very heart of what America is all about," said Representative Todd Akin, Republican of Missouri and sponsor of the Pledge Protection Act. "If we allow activist judges to go there, what's next?"

 

Opponents countered that the pledge bill, along with similar measures restricting courts' jurisdiction, represented a power grab by conservatives that would threaten the separation of powers.

[ashw_justin]

conservatives contended that they had to act preemptively

 

Uh-oh, here we go again... Can't play nice? Just break the rules!

[J_Fisher]

Judicial review--the idea that courts can invalidate legislative actions--is a very good policy that, unfortunately, has been on tenuous legal footing since it was established by Marbury vs. Madison back in the way early days of the republic. It has survived b/c of the strong concensus that a legal check on the legislature is consistent with the "checks and balances" framework laid out in the constitution. The republicans want to throw away what has been a very successful check on governmental infringement on individual rights in order to make of hay of a purely emotional issue. Anyone who believes the current republican party supports traditional conservative values of limited government, fiscal restraint and respect for traditional legal institutions is delusional.

[ashw_justin]

I think it goes beyond being an emotional issue. This is straight-up religious fundamentalism.

[fenderfour]

What about activist legislators? Who gets to tell them "no"? It used to be the activist judges...

[Mal_Con]

The law is unconstitional on it's face. Even the present supremes will have no trouble striking it down especially since is restricts THEIR POWER.

[Alpinfox]

What about activist legislators? Who gets to tell them "no"? It used to be the activist judges...

 

No shit! Good on ya F4.

 

I am fucking disgusted by the republican party. Anybody know what the emmigration policy for Canada is?

[Dru]

Big sign saying "WILL BELAY FOR FOOD"

[fenderfour]

I think you need to bring a job with you.

[Alpine_Tom]

I hear New Zealand is a good place to emigrate to, if you're skilled. Mountains, too!