Posted on 09/28/2004 8:25:28 PM PDT by nypokerface
Republican strategists are targeting vulnerable House Democrats who voted against legislation that would strip courts of their jurisdiction to review cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance.
Calling it “an issue voters understand and respond to on a visceral level,” the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) launched a coordinated effort last week attacking select Democrats for voting against the Pledge Protection Act.
The Hill was provided a list of 10 Democratic incumbents the NRCC is targeting on the pledge bill, including Reps. Dennis Moore (Kan.), Baron Hill (Ind.) and Michael Michaud (Maine).
“This is an opportunity for Congress to say we want the people of America to decide they want ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance instead of having activist federal judges decide the matter,” said NRCC spokesman Bo Harmon.
The bill was introduced by Missouri Rep. Todd Akin (R) and passed the House on a 247-173 vote. If enacted, the bill would take power away from the courts in hearing cases involving the constitutionality of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and allow states to decide the matter.
Some political observers note that the bill has little chance of passing the Senate this year and say House lawmakers scheduled the vote in order to win political points so close to the Nov. 2 elections.
“The only reason [House Republicans] did this is so they could run 30-second ads on it,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.). “I don’t think the NRCC cares a thing about this vote actually passing. They just hoped their Democratic opponents would vote against it so they could attack them.”
A survey conducted this summer by the First Amendment Center and American Journalism Review magazine found that 70 percent of Americans said that the words “one nation, under God” in the pledge did not violate the First Amendment.
Lofgren said there are many problems with the legislation.
“What this [bill] purports to do is to say that the federal courts don’t have the power to interpret the law relative to the U.S. Constitution,” Lofgren said. “Furthermore, that this would be utilized for political purposes — saying those who vote against protecting the pledge are against God — is stunning.”
The NRCC would not divulge many details on its strategy to highlight Democratic votes on the pledge measure. Harmon said the list of 10 was based on the makeup and importance of each district in this year’s election. “In some districts, [protecting the Pledge of Allegiance] is a very important issue. In other districts, tax cuts or job loss is the more important issue,” Harmon said.
“Many mainstream Democrats crossed the aisle on this and supported protecting the act, and this is a way to signal to those Democrats who voted against it — as well as their party’s leader — that they voted the wrong way,” Harmon said.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who is not considered a vulnerable incumbent, voted against the House bill.
Jennifer Crider, a spokeswoman for Pelosi, said, “This is an attempt for Republicans to be divisive in a presidential election year, and most Americans see that. The U.S. Supreme Court has a valuable role in providing checks and balances in the legislature.”
Six House GOP lawmakers voted against the bill, while 34 Democrats voted in favor of it. Democratic strategists say they have a chance of defeating Rep. Christopher Shays (Conn.), one of the six Republicans who rejected the Akin bill.
Shays described the rationale behind his vote in a statement: “I voted against [the Akin bill] because I have faith in our Constitution and do not believe we should preclude judges from hearing issues of social relevance, simply because we may disagree with their ultimate decisions.”
Shays challenger Diane Farrell told The Hill, “Once again it points to the ineffectiveness of Chris’s vote in Congress. He understands what the sentiment in his district would be on this issue and he’s attempting to have it both ways. ... Chris can vote however he wants, but it’s really Tom DeLay’s (R-Texas) game.”
In Indiana’s 9th District, where Republican Mike Sodrel is challenging third-term congressman Baron Hill (D), the pledge vote has become a major campaign issue.
“We are a culturally conservative district, and when anyone messes with our faith or our country, it’s a big deal. And in this instance they are messing with both our faith and our country by voting against protecting the Pledge of Allegiance,” said Sodrel campaign manager Kevin Boehnlein.
Boehnlein declined to say whether his candidate planned on running any television ads on the pledge vote issue, but said it would play a role in upcoming debates between the two candidates. “Our constituents are calling in and telling us they are angry about Baron Hill’s vote on this. He is voting against the cultural norms of this district once again,” Boehnlein said.
A spokesperson for Hill did not return a phone call seeking comment.
In addition to the NRCC’s sending out statements, several Republican challengers such as Kris Kobach (Kan.), Brian Hamel (Maine) and Duane Sand (N.D.) have issued press releases on the pledge vote.
Harmon declined to say whether the NRCC would produce any television surrounding the vote in the five weeks leading up to the elections.
Despite being in tight races, many Democrats say that the Republican attacks over the Pledge of Allegiance will prove to be futile and that they are not worried going into November.
In a statement, Michaud explained his vote: “Like most Americans, I honor the Pledge of Allegiance and agree that it should remain a fixture in our culture. However, I do not agree with the approach taken in this bill. ... Denying federal courts the ability to interpret the constitutionality of laws also sets a very dangerous precedent. If this were to occur, Congress could become essentially the sole authority on the constitutionality of any subject.”
What's the problem?
I don't need someone to "interpret" the Constitution for me, thank you. I can read English.
We need to find a way to contain or remove activist judges who overstep their authority and legislate from the bench.
Ping
Would they PLEASE go after Jim Kolbe - RINO, AZ - for his vote against the bill too?
It is surreal to see Republicans using the Pledge.
The creator of the pledge of allegiance was a self-proclaimed National Socialist. The pledge’s original salute was a straight arm salute. It was the origin of the salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Francis Bellamy (creator of the pledge) wanted a government takeover of education, and to eliminate all of the better alternatives, in order to create an "industrial army" (a Bellamy term) to socialize the economy, as described in the book "Looking Backward" by Edward Bellamy, cousin and cohort of Francis.
The original single right arm salute was no less worshipful idolatry of socialism and government then if the left arm had been extended also. That is the mentality that led to its adoption by the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The claim that it was an old Roman salute is a myth.
The right hand over the heart is no less crass idolatry of socialism and government then if the left hand were crossed over the right, in another clearer position of prayer.
The legacy of the socialist’s government-takeover of education was racism and segregation imposed by law and taught as official policy in government schools. It was behavior later displayed by the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The racism and segregation in government schools continued even after WWII and into the '60s, even beyond. Bellamy was a bigot.
Edward Bellamy's book was an international bestseller and influenced the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (62 million killed), the People's Republic of China (35 million killed), and the National Socialist German Workers' Party (21 million killed). (Death tolls from the book "Death by Government" by Professor R. J. Rummel).
Bellamy was not an atheist. Far from it. He was theistic and he was a religious wacko. Bellamy was a preacher, and a member of the Society of Christian Socialists, and was expelled from the ministry for giving speeches such as "Jesus the Socialist" (finding a copy of that speech is harder than finding photos of the original Nazi-style salute to the flag, now available in google image searches for “nazi salute”).
Bellamy’s socialist plans were successful in duping most Americans into supporting his socialist schools and even into supporting a daily robotic chant of his government worshiping pledge daily in government schools. Bellamy’s socialist plans were successful in duping most Americans to support the social security scam and socialist slave numbers, even given to infants, to track everyone’s residences, movements, employment, finances for life, stealing the whole way. Bellamy has succeeded in duping even Republican Congressmen into boastfully reciting the socialist's pledge, supporting his government schools, social security and massive spending that out-socialized Clinton’s by triple (in social spending alone). One reason for that is because Bellamy's government-school monopoly taught most Americans and most Congressmen propaganda about the pledge, and cajoled everyone into robotically chanting it daily on cue from a government bell, like Pavlov's lapdogs of the state.
Also, most Americans and most Congressmen have never seen the rare photos of the historic pledge. Government schools never show them. And Congressmen are too intellectually dishonest to show them too.
The separation of school and state is as important as the separation of church and state. The government should not run Sunday school, nor Monday school through Friday school.
On September 27th, the U.S. Supreme Court conferred about a case urging that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. The case is Wonschik v. U.S. and I have filed an Amicus Brief in that case.
Wonschik might end the "Pledge Protection Act" before the act starts. It is a race to see which happens first.
A motion to recuse might result in the recusal of the entire U.S. Supreme Court. The motion expands arguments that resulted in the recusal of Justice Scalia. It is the first time in history that a motion to recuse addressed each Justice. The motion to recuse discusses the history of the Pledge and the Court's segregation cases.
Let's restore the pledge to its pre-1892 version.
I'm not sure that I understand your last sentence. If the pledge had a pre-1892 version, then how is it that you credit it's 'creation' to this Bellamy person?
And while I agree that the Federal government should not control the public schools, the State governments have always financed public schools. Since the early days of our history, each new township was supposed to set aside land for schools. Hence, there has always been governmental control of the public schools at some level.
Even now, we could probably throw off Federal government control of our schools, if the States were willing to reject Federal funding and handle education completely on their own. This, however, would be a major problem in many of the poorer states.
If you're really concerned about Federal control of the public schools, you might want to start at the root (the funding issue), instead of with some "leaf" like the pledge of allegiance.
It's called impeachment. If congress would grow some spine and stop the judiciary from encroaching on it's domain it would happen.
I don't think it will ever happen because congress is to busy thinking up ways to tax us and spend the money on vote buying schemes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.