Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Stephen Maturin · 07-25-2003, 07:01 AM

Seems there's a move afoot in Congress to amend an appropriations bill for the purpose of prohibiting use of federal funds to enforce the Ninth Circuit's Pledge decision or the Eleventh Circuit's ruling on Roy Moore's Ten (or thereabouts) Commandments monument. You can read about it here.

On a completely unrelated and egregiously off-topic matter, some folks will spend money on anything, no matter how insane or shlocky. Need proof? Check out the Rehnquist bobblehead being auctioned on eBay.

Toto · 07-25-2003, 10:19 AM

So does that mean that the orders could be enforced by fining Judge Moore $5,000 per day until the monument is removed?

Stephen Maturin · 07-25-2003, 11:34 AM

Interesting question. Let's see how that might play out once cert. is denied, all stays are lifted and the case is back in the trial judge's hands:

Bailiff: The monument's still there, your honor.

Trial Judge: What? Moore's ignoring my order to remove monument? Well, I can't have federal marshals do it thanks to Congress, but I'm finding Moore in contempt and fining him $5,000 per day.

(One week later . . .)

B: He hasn't paid a penny so far, judge.

TJ: What? The prick's not paying the fines? That does it. I'm issuing a bench warrant for his arrest. There. Now run this down to the marshals office and have it executed right away.

B: Uh, your honor - the appropriations bill, remember?

TJ: Ah, shit.

(Ten minutes later . . .)

B: Judge, I just called down to the marshals office. One of the deputies is willing to execute that warrant for free.

beejay · 07-25-2003, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Maturin B: Judge, I just called down to the marshals office. One of the deputies is willing to execute that warrant for free.

[/B]

ROTFLMAO. :notworthy

Hey, if it comes to that, I'll pay the deputy's salary for the time it takes to drag Moore to jail.

beejay · 07-25-2003, 12:19 PM

Quote:

WASHINGTON, DC - In an effort to block the enforcement of two recent Federal Court decisions regarding the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments, the House has adopted two amendments offered by Rep. John Hostettler.

and of course Hostettler is from Indiana.

beejay · 07-25-2003, 01:07 PM

News article on House vote

Here's a news article about the (unconstitutional) attempt by the House to control what a court can order.

I imagine it disappears in the conference committee.

RufusAtticus · 07-25-2003, 01:18 PM

Stupid is as stupid does.

RufusAtticus · 07-25-2003, 01:39 PM

This is what the two amendments say:

"None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used to enforce the judgment in Newdow v. U.S. Congress 292 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2002)."

"None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used to enforce the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Glassroth v. Moore, decided July 1, 2003 or Glassroth v. Moore, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1067 (M. D. Ala. 2002)."

Once these cases get decided by a higher up court, these rules become invalid because the decisions are different than the ones listed here.

Now look at this exchange that I dug out of the congressional record:

Quote:

MR. HOSTETTLER. . . . And it is for that reason, Mr. Chairman, that I have offered this amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations Act. This legislation is where we find any funding in any executive agency that would enforce the 11th Circuit's judgment in this case. My amendment would prevent any funds within that act from being used to enforce that erroneous decision in Glassroth v. Moore. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a classic. In the long history of this institution, there have been many amendments offered on the floor of this Chamber. Never has an amendment been offered that did less than this amendment does tonight. It does not matter how people vote. No matter what side one is on on the question of separation of church and State or the Ten Commandments or anything else, it does not matter how one votes, because this amendment does not do nothing to nobody.

All this amendment does is to say that the Justice Department cannot enforce the decision that the gentleman does not like. The only problem is the Justice Department does not enforce this decision anyway. The Justice Department has already made quite clear that this is a ``let us pretend'' amendment. It pretends that we are doing something to protect the Ten Commandments.

I would suggest that rather than offering amendments that pretend to do that, if we want to protect the Ten Commandments, we will simply start by following them in our own lives and in our own careers. That will do a whole lot more than pretending that we are preventing the Justice Department from enforcing a decision which they would not be enforcing anyway.

So I could not care less how one votes on the amendment because it does not have any effect whatsoever. If the gentleman wants to take the time of this body to offer do-nothing amendments, be my guest; but I hope Members are not under an illusion.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY. No, I will not. This is my time. The gentleman has had his time.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I just asked the gentleman to yield.

Mr. OBEY. And I said no, and I do not intend to yield for the remainder of my time, okay?

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Is this in compliance with the Ten Commandments?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, who has the floor?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin has the time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I suggest the gentleman from Indiana start following the Ten Commandments in terms of the way he treats people on this floor. This is my time. It is not funny.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply close by saying, vote however you want. This is a free vote. It is one of those votes that Members often offer in hopes that the public can be convinced we are actually doing something at 8:15 at night; but with all due respect on this amendment, we are not. So vote any way you want, just do not be under the illusion that when you do so, you are protecting the Ten Commandments. It does not. I could care less what the vote is.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, future proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) will be postponed.

beejay · 07-25-2003, 01:52 PM

Quote:

All this amendment does is to say that the Justice Department cannot enforce the decision that the gentleman does not like. The only problem is the Justice Department does not enforce this decision anyway. The Justice Department has already made quite clear that this is a ``let us pretend'' amendment. It pretends that we are doing something to protect the Ten Commandments.

So Hostettler gets to return to Indiana and tell his constituents that he did what he could to "protect" the 10C.

No wonder it didn't make the news yesterday. (But some of the Alabama newspapers are picking it up today.)

Grumpy · 07-25-2003, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I suggest the gentleman from Indiana start following the Ten Commandments in terms of the way he treats people on this floor. This is my time. It is not funny.

So, was Hostettler coveting his time, or stealing it?

Seems the Ten Commandments are of limited utility where parliamentary procedure is concerned. Members of Congress are even given special immunity from "bearing false witness" while making floor speeches.

07-25-2003, 07:01 AM	#1
Stephen Maturin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 1,295	Newdow, Moore, Congress and the Power of the Purse Seems there's a move afoot in Congress to amend an appropriations bill for the purpose of prohibiting use of federal funds to enforce the Ninth Circuit's Pledge decision or the Eleventh Circuit's ruling on Roy Moore's Ten (or thereabouts) Commandments monument. You can read about it here. On a completely unrelated and egregiously off-topic matter, some folks will spend money on anything, no matter how insane or shlocky. Need proof? Check out the Rehnquist bobblehead being auctioned on eBay.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-25-2003, 10:19 AM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	So does that mean that the orders could be enforced by fining Judge Moore $5,000 per day until the monument is removed?

07-25-2003, 11:34 AM	#3
Stephen Maturin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 1,295	Interesting question. Let's see how that might play out once cert. is denied, all stays are lifted and the case is back in the trial judge's hands: Bailiff: The monument's still there, your honor. Trial Judge: What? Moore's ignoring my order to remove monument? Well, I can't have federal marshals do it thanks to Congress, but I'm finding Moore in contempt and fining him $5,000 per day. (One week later . . .) B: He hasn't paid a penny so far, judge. TJ: What? The prick's not paying the fines? That does it. I'm issuing a bench warrant for his arrest. There. Now run this down to the marshals office and have it executed right away. B: Uh, your honor - the appropriations bill, remember? TJ: Ah, shit. (Ten minutes later . . .) B: Judge, I just called down to the marshals office. One of the deputies is willing to execute that warrant for free.

07-25-2003, 01:07 PM	#6
beejay Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Richmond IN Posts: 375	News article on House vote Here's a news article about the (unconstitutional) attempt by the House to control what a court can order. I imagine it disappears in the conference committee.

07-25-2003, 01:18 PM	#7
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Stupid is as stupid does.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.