http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65109,00.html WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly -- though not unanimously -- on Tuesday for a bill that would keep mentions of God in the Pledge of Allegiance and national motto. Lawmakers voted 401-5 for the measure that calls for "under God" to stay in the Pledge of Allegiance and to keep "In God We Trust" as the national motto. Four others voted present. In June, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the phrase "under God," inserted by Congress into the pledge in 1954, violates the separation of church and state because the phrase amounts to a government endorsement of religion. The case that sparked the court ruling was brought by a California man who described himself as an atheist. He said he wanted to be able to raise his daughter free of godly interferences, like the use of the words in the daily recitation of the pledge at school. The child's mother said the father doesn't even raise the child, who is a strong believer in God. The June ruling brought strong criticism from President Bush and members of Congress, who immediately gathered on the Capitol steps to recite the pledge. The next day, virtually the entire Senate showed up for a morning prayer to affirm that the United States is "one nation under God." The House bill was ushered through by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. He said the bill reaffirms "the myriad of ways in which federal, state and local governments acknowledge America's religious heritage and its consistency with both historical practice and legal precedent." The House bill gives directions on the appropriate manner for saying the pledge, which includes the removal of nonreligious headgear with the right hand to be held at the left shoulder as the hand rests on the heart. The Senate is expected to pass an identical bill soon. It had already approved a bill that did not contain the headgear references. The bill will then go to the White House for the president's signature. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
What a courageous, gutsy vote. If the original ruling is upheld, then the new bill doesn't count. If it is overturned, the new bill just says the same thing.
Members of Congress have already said that there is a good possibility that they will draft a Constitutional amendment should the original ruling be upheld. Don't hold your breath on it being upheld. The 9th Circuit has a HORRIBLE record on appeal.
Glad to see they aren't wasting time with trivial things and getting right to the key issue in America today -- whether or not the phrase "under God" is in the Pledge of Allegiance.
I wouldn't consider the Pledge of Allegiance as trivial. Neither would the guy who decided to sue on it. Neither would the ACLU. Neither would the religious groups. This is important to many people. Besides...it's called multitasking.
<B>I wouldn't consider the Pledge of Allegiance as trivial. Neither would the guy who decided to sue on it. Neither would the ACLU. Neither would the religious groups. This is important to many people.</B> It may be important, but I don't think it would be Constitutional-Amendment-important. That would be an odd amendment if it did come down to that. More likely, the ruling will just be overturned and we'll move along our merry way.
It may seem odd but that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. This ruling has infuriated many legislators...to the point that they want an amendment. But I do think that the Supreme Court will overturn the decision and we'll put that issue behind us.
First your post in the illegal immigration thread and now this. You clearly have nothing to add to the discourse.
Tell me about it. If not for the history of this country and the belief system of the majority, wil there be such an act in the congress to preserve "under God" in the official text, making those who don't want it excercise their opt-out, rather than taking it off, making those who want it opt to add it? You think this will happen in say, Japan? And let me add this. Where do you think a person's religious belief comes from. If a person has never heard of cristianality, will he/she still become a cristian? And where do you think this person should take his complain? If he works through legislature system, puts it to a vote, hw won't win his case. As most people are fine with it given the nature of this country. Just like you may not want to pay for that public construction, if most people vote for it, you still need to shell out tax dollar for it. And now since it is an issue about religious/non-religious freedom, and since there are such things as constitution amendments, he takes it to that course.
I would suggest that he take his argument to the Supreme Court of the United States who interpret the Constitution and lay down the law of the land. I differ with the Supreme Court on many things that are of extreme importance to me. For instance I feel that if the students want to pray before a football game then so be it. Not so said the court. I disagree but I live with it.
It will. The 9th Circuit's decision is probably going to be appealed to the Supreme Court. Some judicial commentators have predicted that should the case be appealed the Supreme Court will reverse the ruling by an overwhelming margin. I would not be surprised to see it overturned by a 9-0 or 8-1 vote.
Are there any other democracies in the world that have anything resembling a Pledge of Allegiance to their nation? Just wondering. I've always been fine with it, but I'm trying to see it from the outside. Kind of odd.
Only when I moved out of state did I realize that Texas was the only (or few?) state that had their own pledge...
Nope, I've read in Harpers a few months back that we're pretty much the only democratic nation UNDER GOD left in the world that makes schoolchihldren swear a loyalty oath every day. Maybe Saddam does it or the other "evil" states like North Korea do it or something, which is ironic.
This, of course, is absolutely wrong; that's what happens when you mindlessly repeat right wing propaganda. Apparently you didn't read the National Law Journal this week. There was an article about "HORRIBLE record on appeal" of the Ninth Circuit. During the last term (or couple of terms, to be honest, I can't remember), when the Supreme Court chose to hear 9th Circuit cases, it reversed them 76% of the time. As you know, that only includes the cases it chose to hear. THe overwhelming majority of the 9th circuit opinions were not even heard. The average reversal rate for all cases heard by the Supreme Court during that same time period? 75%. Yes, the 9th Circuit is a shocking 1% more likely to be reversed. Indeed, Justice Reinhardt, the author of the pledge decision and a guy to which Bill O Relly devoted an entire show about his maverick ways, had 3 of 5 opinions heard reversed last term for a 60% ratio. Quick! Somebody stop him. But hey, they say on Fox News that the 9th circuit gets routinely reversed, and Fox is fair and balanced so it must be true.
If our Senators and Representatives were truly any good at this, we wouldn't need lobbyists to help them understand the issues.
