Time for a rant

Anyone heard about the so-called Pledge Protection Act that passed the House around a week ago or so? If so, here's what I think of it and the morons who wrote it:

#&*%$#&%#&%$#&%@#*@&!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd write down some of the creative vulgar phrases this whole thing deserves, but I don't have the energy, plus my parents and grandparents read this.

In short, the Act prohibits federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from hearing cases about the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. I read that this is the second time in the past couple months that the House has passed a bill stripping federal courts of jurisdiction to hear certain cases, the other time being in relation to same-sex marriage, but this one has really pissed me off.

While it seems like this should be unconstitutional right off, and practically equivalent to spitting at the separation of powers, it isn't necessarily so. Congress does have the power under Article III to make "exceptions or regulations" to the appellate jurisdiction of federal courts. But the exception they've made here is beyond irresponsible and a waste of everyone's time and money, it directly undermines freedom of religion. If the federal courts have no authority to review any questions pertaining to the recitation or validity of the Pledge, as this bill would do, then they are not barred from simply ruling certain versions or phrases (read: "Under God") in the pledge unconstitutional, they also have no jurisdiction to address problems of laws mandating that students recite the Pledge. For decades, students have been free to not recite the Pledge along with their classmates for whatever reason they choose, most often because of religious objection to pledging allegiance to anything other than God. Under this law, West Virginia v Barnette would no longer be a barrier to a state passing a law punishing students for not reciting the Pledge. Hear that Congress? This stupid law isn't just a danger to pesky atheists, but sincere Christians as well.

Sure, there's still the state courts, but why the heck do we want 50 different interpretations of how and in what form the Pledge can be recited? If it violates the Establishment Clause, it violates the Establishment Clause, whether or not the courts are allowed to say so. It's the same damn Constitution, and the states don't have any more freedom to violate it than Congress does. Of course, there are those who will say that the Establishment Clause only limits Congress, so states are perfectly within their rights to put the words "under God" in the Pledge and force all school children to say it. The beauty of all this is that it's the Supreme Court that has determined that neither Congress nor states have the power to violate freedom of religion, and under this law, the Supreme Court is completely cut out of the mix.

And of course that's what this is all about. The Representatives who voted for this don't want federal courts to hear the cases because they're afraid their ruling won't be the one they want. They'd rather throw it to the state courts and take their chances. This is stupid because a) there's no reason to assume the federal courts are all gung-ho about ruling the phrase "Under God" unconstitutional, no matter what the Ninth Circuit did. The Supreme Court may have dismissed Newdow on a technicality, but they didn't indicate any receptiveness to his arguments either, if I recall. And b) How childish and petulant is it to bar the federal courts from doing what they're there to do, interpret and rule on Constitutional matters, just because you think the answer might not be the one you want? How is it okay for this country to have a judiciary with the authority to rule on only some constitutional matters?

Two guys on FindLaw put it beautifully, I think: "If a federal court thinks that it violates the Establishment Clause to include the words "one nation under god" in a publicly recited pledge, then that court would probably also think it violates the Establishment Clause for Congress to deprive federal courts of the power to hear cases precisely in order to permit the Pledge to be illegally recited. (And if it does not violate the Establishment Clause to include "under God" in the Pledge, the Pledge Act is unnecessary and a gratuitous insult to a coordinate branch of government.)...

It is true that Article III gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make" - the language on which the bill's backers rely. But in over 200 years the Supreme Court has never held that this language permits Congress to withdraw the authority of the entire federal judiciary to hear constitutional claims. Such an interpretation of Article III would allow Congress to escape the primary constraint embedded in the Constitution's structure for preventing the Congress from abridging constitutional guarantees -- an independent judiciary with the authority to hear claims arising under the Constitution." http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20041001_brownstein.html

Sometimes the checks and balances create such a weird and vicious circle. Anyway, as that author also says, either we have an independent judiciary or we have a country where if the government doesn't like the court's constitutional interpretations, it will take away their right to interpret it. I hope Congress picks one soon, so I can avoid going back to America at all if necessary.

Bah. Empty threat. Of course I'm going back. But I'm still going to rant at them. I hope every one of them gets kicked out of office.