House bill shielding Pledge Of Allegiance would strip Court of power

[kpete]

Nation/World
House approves bill that shields Pledge of Allegiance
Legislation faces uncertain fate as it moves to Senate

July 20, 2006

BY JIM ABRAMS

ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- The House, citing the nation's religious origins, voted Wednesday to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges who might try to stop anyone from reciting it because of the phrase "under God."

The legislation, a priority of social conservatives, passed 260-167 and faces an uncertain future in the Senate. In the Michigan delegation, all six Democrats voted against the bill and all nine Republicans voted for it.

"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."

Opponents said the legislation, which would bar federal courts from ruling on the constitutional validity of the pledge, would undercut judicial independence and deny religious minorities access to federal courts to defend their rights.

more:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060720/NEWS07/607200382/1009/NEWS07

[Emit]

1. Why does it not surprise me in the least that

Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn. is part of "The Family"?

~snip~
Ivanwald, which sits at the end of Twenty-fourth Street North in Arlington, Virginia, is known only to its residents and to the members and friends of the organization that sponsors it, a group of believers who refer to themselves as "the Family." The Family is, in its own words, an "invisible" association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men. Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), Pete Domenici (R., N.Mex.), John Ensign (R., Nev.), James Inhofe (R., Okla.), Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and Conrad Burns (R., Mont.) are referred to as "members," as are Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Frank Wolf (R., Va.), Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.), Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and Bart Stupak (D., Mich.).
~snip~

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:m07VlS7bkogJ:www.theocracywatch.org/secret_theocrats.html+Zach+Wamp&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

And, "As of September 22, 2004..." he was one of the "39 co-sponsors of the Constitution Restoration Act..."

http://www.theocracywatch.org/sponors_cra_sept22_04.htm

More: http://www.theocracywatch.org/


We're getting that much closer to a theocracy, I fear.

:scared:

[Sydnie]

2. I watched a few minutes of the debate and I figured that out fast

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1672627&mesg_id=1673153

You mean these "law makers" mean to do that? You bet! They give more power to the idiot in the wh and strip more power from the people by limiting what the court can hear and what it can't? Before long, there won't be anything they can hear at all.

[High Plains]

3. Somebody should explain Marbury v. Madison to these yahoos.

You know, the courts get to decide what's constitutional. It's only been precedent since 1819, I think.