These are the US Reps who hate the Pledge of Allegiance (all Democrats, of course)

http:www.lucianne.com ^ | 6/28/02 | from lucianne.com

[Constitution Day]

I'll be darned! This will look REAL good in the fall!

I can't wait! (rubbing my conservative hands in glee)

[Howlin]

Well, it sure looks that way, doesn't it?

[Colonel_Flagg]

I'm just getting to this thread, my Congressman voted "present" and I'm mad as hell.

Can anyone link to the wording of the resolution?

[Howlin]

What I don't understand about a vote like that is I was under the impression that HIS constituents are very religious and patriotic! It doesn't make sense to me.

I don't care why though.......we can beat him over the head with it. Look what happened to that guy down south.

[ohioman]

How can you and three of your bestest butt pirates sit on one bar stool?

Answer: Turn the bar stool upside down.

[Darlin']

"You're beginning to get on my nerves with your misinformation."

Aaaaaw, don't blame him. Blame Allah. His "information" usually bears some similarities to that "72 Virgins" fairy tale.

[Kaslin]

Well Optimist answered your question in # 27

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Further PROOF Democrats = communism/socialism

[Carolina]

Here you go:

H. Res. 459

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

June 27, 2002.

Whereas on June 26, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, stating that it `impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God,' and places children in the `untenable position of choosing between participating in an exercise with religious content or protesting.';

Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer or a religious practice, the recitation of the pledge is not a religious exercise;

Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance is the verbal expression of support for the United States of America, and its effect is to instill support for the United States of America;

Whereas the United States Congress recognizes the right of those who do not share the beliefs expressed in the Pledge to refrain from its recitation;

Whereas this ruling is contrary to the vast weight of Supreme Court authority recognizing that the mere mention of God in a public setting is not contrary to any reasonable reading of the First Amendment. The Pledge of Allegiance is not a religious service or a prayer, but it is a statement of historical beliefs. The Pledge of Allegiance is a recognition of the fact that many people believe in God and the value that our culture has traditionally placed on the role of religion in our founding and our culture. The Supreme Court has recognized that governmental entities may, consistent with the First Amendment, recognize the religious heritage of America;

Whereas the notion that a belief in God permeated the founding of our Nation was well recognized by Justice Brennan, who wrote in School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 304 (1963) (Brennan, J., concurring), that `[t]he reference to divinity in the revised pledge of allegiance * * * may merely recognize the historical fact that our Nation was believed to have been founded `under God.'. Thus reciting the pledge may be no more of a religious exercise than the reading aloud of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which contains an allusion to the same historical fact.'; and

Whereas this ruling treats any religious reference as inherently evil and is an attempt to remove such references from the public arena: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that--

(1) the Pledge of Allegiance, including the phrase `One Nation, under God,' reflects the historical fact that a belief in God permeated the founding and development of our Nation;

(2) the Ninth Circuit's ruling is inconsistent with the United States Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence that the Pledge of Allegiance and similar expressions are not unconstitutional expressions of religious belief;

(3) the phrase `One Nation, under God,' should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance; and

(4) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should agree to rehear this ruling en banc in order to reverse this constitutionally infirm and historically incorrect ruling.

.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The PoS, Gutierrez, is a acknowledged supporter of terrorism as well so who would be surprised at his antics?

[4CJ]

Ms. McKinney reminds me of Mickey Mouse when she has her hair up in dual buns. Either that or Princess Leia.

I think Mickey would be p*ssed if he read that.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Never fear, there is not an idea among the lot of them other than "how can I help destroy this Godforsaken country of terror and violence?"

I am sure you feel right at home.

[blackie]

Stop the attacks by the wacko, extreme left-wing, democrat-nazis terrorist's on our Freedoms !!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

Molon Labe !!

[Thraka]

No, they should be denounced. In this country, you absolutely never should hold thoughts contrary to the majority, especially on issues like this. You should shut up and go along with the crowd rather than spending your time "thinking". That nasty "thinking" only gets you in trouble, it gives you "ideas".

By this rationale, then, you would have us believe the majority is _never_ in the right, eh? That those who 'think' can only demonstrate having done so by voting against the majority?

Perhaps you might try this 'thinking' thing, too....

Thraka

[Thraka]

How were the rest of "you" told to "shut up" and "live like he wants you to"?

We must resort to educating you as we would a child? How is it not obvious that the ruling bars reciting the pledge? Perhaps you would like to debate the meaning of 'is', for an encore?

Thraka

[TLBSHOW]

SENATE RECORD VOTE ANALYSIS


101st Congress
1st Session
October 20, 1989, 11:39 a.m.
Page S-13786 Temp. Record
Vote No. 262


HASTINGS IMPEACHMENT/Article IX


SUBJECT:


Impeachment of Judge Alcee L. Hastings. Question of guilt on Article IX of Impeachment.


GUILTY, 70 - 25


SYNOPSIS:


Pertinent votes on this impeachment include Nos. 22-23 and 253-264.


On October 19, 1989, the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, resumed consideration of the impeachment of Judge Alcee L. Hastings. On October 20, 1989, the Senate met in closed session to consider their findings and, subsequently, voted on the separate Articles of Impeachment on October 20, 1989.


After finding Judge Alcee L. Hastings guilty of Article VIII (see vote No. 261), the Senate considered Article IX, which alleged that, while Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, he did knowingly and contrary to his oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, make a false statement: to wit, that three documents which purported to be drafts of letters to assist Hemphill Pride of Columbia, South Carolina, had been written by Judge Hastings on October 5, 1981, and were the letters referred to by Judge Hastings in his October 5, 1981, telephone conversation with William Borders.


The question before the Senate was: "How say you Senators, guilty or not guilty?"


NOTE: While 17 Articles of Impeachment were exhibited against Judge Hastings, by unanimous consent the Senate agreed not to vote on Articles X-XV. Each of the Articles was separate and distinct, and provided a basis for Judge Hastings' conviction by the Senate. Under Senate impeachment rule XXIII, the yeas and nays were taken separately on each Article of Impeachment. A two-thirds affirmative vote of those present and voting in the adoption of at least one of the Articles of Impeachment was required for conviction. The Constitution provides that, if convicted by the Senate, civil officers shall be removed from office and shall not be allowed to hold any further civil office. Since the Senate's deliberations on the Articles of Impeachment were conducted in closed session, there was no public record of the debate available to summarize. For a detailed synopsis of the impeachment proceedings against Judge Hastings, see vote No. 254.



None.


VOTING YEA:


Republicans:
(34 or 85%) Bond Boschwitz Burns Chafee Cochran Cohen Danforth Dole Domenici Garn Gorton Gramm Grassley Hatfield Heinz Helms Humphrey Kassebaum Kasten Lugar McCain McClure McConnell Murkowski Nickles Pressler Roth Rudman Simpson Stevens Symms Thurmond Wallop Warner

Democrats:
(36 or 65%) Baucus Bentsen Boren Breaux Bryan Bumpers Byrd Conrad Daschle DeConcini Dixon Exon Ford Fowler Glenn Gore Hollings Inouye Johnston Kennedy Kerrey Kerry Kohl Lautenberg Leahy Levin Matsunaga Mitchell Nunn Pell Reid Riegle Robb Rockefeller Sarbanes Simon


VOTING NAY:


Republicans:
(6 or 15%) Armstrong D'Amato Durenberger Hatch Packwood Specter

Democrats:
(19 or 35%) Adams Biden Bingaman Bradley Burdick Cranston Dodd Graham Harkin Heflin Lieberman Metzenbaum Mikulski Moynihan Pryor Sanford Sasser Shelby Wirth


NOT VOTING:


Republicans:
(5) Coats-I Jeffords-I Lott-I Mack-I Wilson-2

Democrats:
(0)

ABSENCE CODE: 1-Official Business 2-Nec. absent 3-Illness 4-Other
Symbols: AY-Announced Yea AN-Announced Nay PY-Paired Yea PN-Paired Nay


Compiled and written by the staff of the Senate Republican Policy Committee


William L. Armstrong, Chairman

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/rva /1011/1011262.htm

[LSUsoph]

Say what you will about the south, but not a single one of those representatives were from the south. No, I do not consider Virginia a part of the south and no, i do not consider S Florida (where I am willing to bet the Rep from Florida is from) part of the south. Yeah we owned slaves and yeah we formed our own confederacy and yeah we may not be the most sophisticated aristocrats on the face of the earth, but NOWHERE will you find more true red blooded Americans!

[Dimensio]

How is it not obvious that the ruling bars reciting the pledge?

Perhaps because the judges didn't make such a ruling? Honestly, do you really believe that the ruling means that anyone who recited the pledge with the "under god" insertion would be locked up? Under what crime would they be charged? What would be the penalty? What in the wording of the ruling suggests any such thing?

[hunter112]

I'm a little surprised to see the representative from the "People's Republic of Seattle": Jim McDermott, in the "present" column, most of his constituents in the most radical areas of that otherwise fine city probably will give him hell for not voting no! He's an embarassment to the rest of the state, and hopefully, we will be able to tilt the rest of the state back to Republicans in the fall.