Seth K

hezekiah,

Not according to <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/" target="_blank">THOMAS</a>, which is the official site for bill info and the Congressional Record. H.J.Res 108 is the one refered to in this thread. The school prayer one is H.J.Res. 81. Query URL's expire quickly, so you need to type in the bill number at the main page.

But this is old news, no matter what those Johnny-come-latelys in the House want you to think. The Senate started on their ammendment the day the Newdow decision was made. See S.J.Res 39.

Other bills that come up when searching for "under God";

• H.J.Res. 103 and 104 Two more pledge ammendments, as if the others werent sufficient.
• H.R. 3895 Ten Commandments Defense Act of 2002
• H.Con.Res. 239 A resolution encouraging schools to set aside time in the school day for prayer.
• H.Con.Res. 124 Resolution that invokes God as essential for "Promoting national unity and family renewal."
• H.R. 4922 The worst of the lot. So-called "First Amendment Restoration Act," it is an attempt to use Congress' power to set the jurisdiction of federal courts to declare that cases involving "religious freedom" are outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and thus cannot be heard.

[edited for context, 'cause others posted while I was composing, and it was meant to be directly under hezekiah's post -sk]

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: Seth K ]</p>

hezekiah jones

<a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.102:" target="_blank">H.J. Res 102</a>

Maybe this is what the agapepress people are jabbering about:

Interestingly it was introduced by the young Chipster two days before the 9th Circuit's decision came down.

This is not the same text as appears on the petition page. H.J. Res 102 to date has a whopping 13 co-sponsors. I sense some serious over-dramatization on the part of the Religious Wrong.

Unless the lovely and talented Stephen Maturin lends his compelling fundie impersonation to the Chipster and his partners in constitutional crime, I'm willing to bet money this proposed amendment goes the way of numerous other utterly frivolous past amendments: nowhere.

The Chipmeister must be awfully desperate to keep his House seat this year. If I were he I'd think I'd be better off trading on the disgrace old man Pickering suffered at the hands of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

hezekiah jones

<a href="http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/hr4922.htm" target="_blank">***Wow***</a>.

It's bad enough that revisionist fruitcakes like <a href="http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr062702.htm" target="_blank">Ron Paul</a> can get their ridiculous asses voted into Congress without actually allowing them to waste tax dollars proposing crackpot gibberish like this.

This reminds me of my own state rep, Glenn Grothman, who regularly appears on Christian television in Milwaukee to gloat about the fact that his views are so "politically incorrect" that 95% of his legislative proposals die in committee, and he is actually proud of that.

I suppose that is the Republican dedication to smaller government in action: "Although I draw a gummint salary, I do fuck-all basically, that's how I keep the gummint from getting out of control."

hezekiah jones

Gotcha. I admit I'm a bit confused about whatever numbering system they use.

Also I wonder what the "Honorable" Ron Paul's suggested remedy for establishment clause litigation will be once he removes the federal judiciary from its ambit - pistols at 20 paces? Or a resort to the factionalism that Madison warned about in Federalist #10?

What we really need is a Constitutional amendment that requires members of Congress to actually have some vague familiarity with the Constitution and its history.

Stephen Maturin

God DAMN. I've seen some looney court-stripping bills over the years, but this one takes the friggin' cake. Narrower but almost equally insane is H.R. 5064, introduced on July 8:

Stephen Maturin

Why, the state courts, of course. Don't let the fact that all state court judges are elected in some form or another bother you. They'll decide Establishment Clause cases exactly as Supreme Court precedent requires, without any regard whatsoever to the adverse publicity that'll be generated by "ruling against Jebus." <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Fortunately, the vast majority of court stripping bills die wimpering, anonymous deaths in committee. With any luck at all, the post-decision furor will die down enough that same result will prevail here.

That's right, capsaicin67. Present-day fundies contend that IGWT is a more accurate reflection of how the Founding Fathers intended government to operate. They simply ignore the fact that it was the Founding Fathers who chose E Pluribus Unum to begin with! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Alonzo Fyfe

For strategic reasons, if you decide that you want to write on this issue, I would recommend that you use the phrase: "Attempt to repeal the first amendment" in all communications, in order to plant this idea into the public consciousness.

For example:

"I do not understand the apparent need for so much language in this amendment. We can simply modify the 21st amendment with relevant changes to get the desired result. The proposed amendment would simply read as follows:

The first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

mibby529

I doubt it'll go through. Even the most utilitarian constitutional amendments seem to have a 16-to-1 shot of actually passing.

capsaicin67

What we really need is a Constitutional amendment that requires members of Congress to actually have some vague familiarity with the Constitution and its history.

That, my friend, is a beauuuutiful idea. I haven't heard of sucha patriotic idea for legislation since I heard the idea about linking the salaries of congress to the average salary in the nation [or was it minimum wage......?]

I would recommend that you use the phrase: "Attempt to repeal the first amendment" in all communications, in order to plant this idea into the public consciousness.

Right on, brother, right on! Mastering the meaning of the debate through a verbal precision airstrike!

Jamie_L

You know, I've got no problem with this one. Let the school "set aside" all the time they want. As long as kids who don't want to pray are allowed to go out and play at recess, or sit in home-room and play Dungeons and Dragons, or whatever else they think would be a better use of their time than prayer.

Better yet, add a little note that kids must declare themselves to be atheists in order to be allowed to play during prayer time. See how many kids adopt the label atheist after that.



Jamie