AzJeff

About two weeks ago, I sent emails to my two state (Arizona) Senators (McCain & Kyl) and my Rep (Jeff Flake) regarding my feelings about the ridiculous grandstanding and vitriol that the entire Congress exhibited on June 26.
I also reminded them of the oath's that they took to uphold the CotUS.
Well, Jeff Flake responded via mail - it looks like a form letter, with paragraph 2 being swapped out with the pro- or con- wording, but it at least addressed the issue!

Here is the text of the letter:

Comments?
(IOW - Fire Away! )

Philosoft

I think he needs a moment alone with Alonzo Fyfe.

Chad

How can we be the most powerful nation in the world if the idiots running it do not even understand pledge ruling? Oh, I forgot, we are one nation under god.

Arrowman

Er - what is outrageous about the current situation, is that a patriotic American who wishes to pledge allegiance to their flag and country, is required to (a) express a belief in God, (b) remain silent, or (c) utter a different pledge from the rest of the group. (Remembering that the Pledge is an official government document, not just a convention.) Mr Flake (good name!) - What would be so terrible about having a Pledge which all Americans can recite together as one, regardless of their religious beliefs, and addressing only their loyalty to their country?

Buffman

<a href="http://www.charm.net/~marc/chronicle/pledgeletter_jul02.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.charm.net/~marc/chronicle/pledgeletter_jul02.shtml</a>

<a href="http://www.charm.net/~marc/chronicle/viewpoint_jul02.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.charm.net/~marc/chronicle/viewpoint_jul02.shtml</a>

I ate Pascal's Wafer

You're making that up. Please tell me you are. Ok, I guess you aren't. How do these people get elected into office?

It didn't? Are you SURE, Mr. Congressman? It certainly appears to be establishing a monotheistic religion to me. You are creating a ruling class of monotheists and a subject class (who must remain silent about their beliefs) of non-monotheists. How is this not an establishment of religion?

Gah, from my understanding, they aren't banning the pledge. He only wants one little part of it to be edited. BTW, they can't ban students from saying the pledge with "under God" in it. If they want to say it then fine, but it shouldn't be in the officially endorsed version.

-Nick (who is getting more incoherent as the night moves on...forgive me if my post doesn't make much sense)

AzJeff

*sigh*
I wish it were a joke!
Needless to say I was not surprised by the "answer" that I did get.

It's obvious that our elected leaders are not fit for the offices that they hold - their knowledge of constitutional law is horrendous, and they do not even feel obligated to read court rulings before commenting or issuing "resolutions".

I'm not sure if I'm going to follow this up - my original letter was pretty comprehensive in covering all of the aspects of the situation, and his "form letter" did not address all of my points, of course.
Sending a follow-up letter would probably be pointless.

Flake indeed!!

Alonzo Fyfe

Thank you.

I think it would be fun. I would like to spend 10 minutes in a public forum with anybody who claims that the 9th Circuit Court was wrong.

However, my criticism of the legislators is somewhat muted. For any legislator to stand up and agree with the 9th Circuit Court ruling is substantially the same thing as standing up and saying "I hereby propose that my seat in the house go to the most charismatic Christian conservative that wants it."

We will see which of the 3 representatives that voted against the resolution (or even which of the 11 who voted 'present') will be back in Congress after November 2.

My guess is that most if not all of them will be gone.

I can well understand a representative or a senator who says publicly what the people want me to say, but who works behind the scenes in order to change peoples' mind in the district that they serve. He would take his most loyal supporters and have them tell their contacts, "Hey, we need to change our representative's opinion on this ruling. The 9th circuit court is right for the following reasons..."

It is easy to consider this deceptive, cowardly, and the like. But, we have designed our political system so that people like this are the only type who get elected.

Stephen Maturin

Dang, Jeff, you're one lucky taxpayer to have this guy representing your interests in Congress! Let's have a quick look-see at his response.

Steeeeerike one! In truth, the court held that: (1) the 1954 act of Congress adding the words in question (not the words themselves) was unconstitutional; and (2) the local school district's policy of teacher-led recitation of the 1954 version of the Pledge was unconstitutional.

There are so many things wrong with this statement that it's tough to decide where to start. First, exactly which enumerated Article I power authorized Congress to add the words? Second, a member of the House of Representatives ought to know that First Amendment prohibits more than just "establish[ing] a religion." Flake is either appallingly underinformed or he's lying through his teeth. Third, the circumstances under which the words "under God" were added to the Pledge are the single best reason for repealing the 1954 Act. After all, the McCarthy Era was hardly our finest hour as a nation.

Steeeeerike two! It was 1943. See <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=624" target="_blank">West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).</a>

Steeeerike three! Rep. Flake misrepresents the Ninth Circuit's holding yet again. [See discussion above.] This time, though, he also misrepresents the ruling's basis. The court ruled as it did because it found that certain state and federal actions violated the Establishment Clause, not because "one person was offended."

"Slippery slope" and "specious analogy" are the informal fallacies that spring to mind right away. Try this one on for size: if Congress passes a statute declaring that meat is good for the spiritual and partiotic well-being of school children because Jehovah demanded burnt offerings and Jesus was a meat eater, the statute would indeed by unconstitutional.

More misrepresentation. Flake is implying a causal connection that doesn't exist. Voluntary stays are SOP in cases such as this. Judge Goodwin's actions in that regard ain't got jack shit to do with "public outcry."

False dichotomy. There are other possibilities here that Flake hasn't considered. Moreover, reversal is hardly a foregone conclusion if the Ninth Circuit allows an en banc rehearing. Of the twenty-four judges eligible to sit on the above-referenced panel, three were appointed by Reagan and four were appointed by Bush the First. The rest are Carter and Clinton appointees. So don't chalk this one up in the win column just yet.

Why? A little analysis would be nice.

Horseshit. That's true in the federal system, but there are state intermediate appellate courts that get reversed more often in a year than the Ninth Circuit gets reversed in a decade. We've got a couple such courts of appeals right here in Ohio.

These folks should stay out of the constitutional law business; they're not very good at it.

Then again, maybe H.R. 459 wasn't a true expression of the sense of the House after all. Maybe it was unmitigated pandering, vote whoring of the basest sort. Nah, that couldn't be!

Koiyotnik

This has to be the most constant, and most infuriating, comment I've been hearing during this whole fiasco.

When I hear it from the average person, yes, I do become irritated that they do not know the grounds of the ruling. That these people would so oppose something whose concept they don't even have a solid grip on agitates me.

But it isn't excusable from a member of government. The fact that Flake doesn't have the slightest clue and has to fall back on spacious analogies doesn't make me angry--it makes me frightened.

It's really such a sad state of affairs.

-Justine.