Gotta Keep 'Em Separated

H.R.2389 : To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal courts over certain cases and controversies involving the Pledge of Allegiance.
Sponsor: Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] (introduced 5/17/2005)
Cosponsors: (197)
Committees: House Judiciary; Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 8/4/2006 Referred to Senate committee.
Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Excerpt from text: Except as provided in subsection (b), no court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance, as defined in section 4 of title 4, or its recitation.

Anybody paying attention to current affairs knows what this is about. Congress, or more accurately, their vocal religious constituents, are nervous about Michael Newdow and his Pledge of Allegiance case. This legislation, if passed, would prevent the Pledge from changing based on unconstitutionality.

Hello -- Does ANYBODY remember basic eighth grade civics? The Supreme Court is supposed to determine constitutionality. That is their job. The legislative branch makes the laws, and to keep them in check, the courts can rule they are unconstitutional. This is called checks and balances and it works because of something called the separation of powers.

Maybe reporters should get together and whenever a member of Congress gives a press conference, a designated reporter (picked at random) should ask a question about the Constitution. I have a feeling Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would get a lot of good footage from questions like, "What are the five things guaranteed by the first amendment?" or "Which article of the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce?" I have a feeling it would play out much like Rep. Westmoreland, who was asked to name the ten commandments he wanted displayed in Congress. "Ummmm. Don't murder. Don't lie. Don't steal. Ummmmm. I can't name them all."

Sour Grapes

H.CON.RES.399 : Recognizing the 30th Anniversary of the victory of United States winemakers at the 1976 Paris Wine Tasting.
Sponsor: Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] (introduced 5/3/2006)
Cosponsors: (150)
Committees: House Government Reform; Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Latest Major Action: 8/2/2006 Passed/agreed to in Senate.
Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.

Did I mention I hate Congressional resolutions. It's bad enough when Congress takes time and money to officially congratulate the Miami Heat for winning THIS year's NBA Championship. Now they take time to call attention to a victory thirty years old?

I hate it even more when the sponsor is MY Congressman. You'll excuse me now while I fire of an email to Rep. Thompson.

Just a note to let you know I don't disagree with Thompson on everything. He did vote for the Hinchey-Rohrabacher Medical Marijuana Amendment which would prohibit federal expense for law enforcement regarding, and prosecution of, medicinal marijuana cases.

Government Buys Crucifix

H.R.5683 : To preserve the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, by providing for the immediate acquisition of the memorial by the United States.
Sponsor: Rep Hunter, Duncan [CA-52] (introduced 6/26/2006)
Cosponsors: (2)
Committees: House Resources; House Armed Services Latest Major Action: 8/1/2006 Passed/agreed to in Senate.
Status: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.

This bill is a blatant attempt to perform an end run around the judiciary branch of the government. You can read about the history of the memorial and the court cases involving the cross at Wikipedia. To make a long story short, the latest court decision was that the cross must be removed. The purpose of this bill is to circumvent efforts by church-state supporters to have a huge religious symbol, a 29 foot-tall-cross, removed from this public memorial since it is owned by the City of San Diego and therefore violates the doctrine of church-state separation. Under the findings section of the bill, as the third of seven items we have an inconspicuous reference to this primary purpose.

The United States has a long history and tradition of memorializing members of the Armed Forces who die in battle with a cross or other religious emblem of their faith, and a memorial cross is fully integrated as the centerpiece of the multi-faceted Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial that is replete with secular symbols.

The key word in the above text is "centerpiece." The cross at Mt. Soledad does not memorialize a certain individual in the memorial like the crosses placed on individual gravesites at Arlington National Cemetary. It casts a religious shadow over the graves of every dead soldier buried at the site. While a majority of Americans are Christians, there are, contrary to the popular saying, atheists in foxholes. This symbol of Christianity stands over even their graves.

Even if you are a Christian, you should understand this country was based on letting each individual make their own decision about matters of faith. When Congress goes to lengths to preserve the religious symbol of one particular faith over all others, they are violating the first amendment, if not in fact (as determined by the courts) certainly in spirit.

Congressional Krispies

Yesterday was a light day in Congress. They only took action on 40 items between the two of them. As such, I was worried I might not find a suitable item to poke fun at. I should have known better.

Consider S. RES. 545, a Resolution referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary that would recognize the life and achievements of Will Keith Kellogg. Resolutions like this are considered and passed in Congress all the time on a daily basis. The point eludes me. I think resolutions are pointless. Passing a resolution, even when it involves a serious issue, which this one does not, does absolutely nothing to improve the lives of citizens and wastes time and resources for which they pay.

No doubt, a ceremony will be held to present a fancy certificate version of this resolution will be held. Family members and company executives will no doubt feel a sense of pride and importance. They will show the framed certificate to their important friends to validate the memory of the father of the corn flake.

In order to make this happen, the support staff of Congress will spend time and money to print copies for the Congressional Record, to coordinate presentation to those concerned, and so on.

For my part, I don't think this is a valuable use of taxpayer funds. I don't think I am alone in this opinion. I think, if this issue were put up for a vote to the general public, it would be overwhelmingly opposed. As such, I think members of Congress should think about what the public would have them do before proposing resolutions instead of actually DOING SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE.

Or, as Tony the Tiger would say in his best John Stossel impression, "Give me a Brrrrrrrreak !!!"

Don't be hatin' Generics

H.R.5993
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the marketing of authorized generic drugs.
Sponsor: Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] (introduced 7/28/2006)
Cosponsors (4)
Committees: House Energy and Commerce
Latest Major Action: 7/28/2006 Referred to House committee.
Status: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Awfulaw comment: As if drugs (the prescription kind) weren't already expensive enough, Representative Emerson and 4 co-sponsors want to prohibit generic pharmaceuticals from being advertised. This makes about as much sense as prohibiting the marketing of used cars. Actually, it makes less sense since you could actually make a case (which could easily be rebutted) for used cars being less safe and less reliable than new cars.

As always, the prescription that will stop this sort of legislation is a Libertarian vote.