In another bout of misguided thinking, the House just approved HR.2028, prohibiting lower Federal courts from taking cases dealing with the Pledge of Allegiance. This, after rejecting a proposed amendment to that bill that would guarantee the Supreme Court the right to take on such cases.
It's one thing for a rep to object to something on principle. It's another thing entirely to prevent the Courts from being able to hear a particular type of case, especially when it deals with a Constitutional issue. To object to guaranteeing the highest court in the land the ability to deal with issues within its domain is, to understate the obvious, worrisome.
It's a sad state of affairs when objections to Constitutional rights are addressed by proposing to amend the Constitution, and when the defense of religious faith is carried out by preventing the legislative branch from doing its job.
It's one thing for a rep to object to something on principle. It's another thing entirely to prevent the Courts from being able to hear a particular type of case, especially when it deals with a Constitutional issue. To object to guaranteeing the highest court in the land the ability to deal with issues within its domain is, to understate the obvious, worrisome.
It's a sad state of affairs when objections to Constitutional rights are addressed by proposing to amend the Constitution, and when the defense of religious faith is carried out by preventing the legislative branch from doing its job.
legionnaire:
I came here to thank you for your interesting contributions to the ongoing discussion in the current events board. Having read your journal entry though, it's inspired me to submit an SG news story on the topic. I hope you don't mind, but I agree with you that it's extremely worrisome (and seemingly unconstitutional in that it violates separation of powers) and deserves some attention. Thanks for the heads up, I'll be sure to credit you in the article.