Lawmakers in Washington pass resolutions seeking to block major decision affecting religious displays on public property, and the inclusion of 'Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance...

n a move that pundits are describing as "ridiculous" and "too silly," the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a legislative amendment that would prevent the use of federal funds from being used to enforce an 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision against Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore's controversial monument of the Ten Commandments.

   Moore, claiming his authority as a "lease holder" of the Alabama Judicial Building, ordered a two-ton granite monument of the Commandments situated in the foyer entrance for all to see. He did not consult fellow justices or political leaders, and secular news media were not advised of the event. Instead, the night-time ceremony was taped by a television crew from evangelist D. James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministry, which entered into an exclusive fundraising deal with Moore in order to raise contributions for legal defense.

   The 11th Circuit found that the monument violated the separation of church and state and constituted a promotion of Moore's personal religious convictions.

   On Capitol Hill, the decision was greeting with disrespect and opposition, with House Leader Tom DeLay leading the charge.

   DeLay has denounced this and other rulings as examples of "judicial activism," and has proposed legislation that immunize many statutes and activities from review by courts. Among them would be displays of the Ten Commandments on public property, or having the "under God" phrase included during recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

   The House Resolution was introduced by Rep. John Hostettler, Republican from Indiana. Alabama representatives supported the measure, including Jo Bonner, Terry Everett, Robert Aderholt, Mike Rogers, Bud Cramer and Spencer Bachus.

   "I believe the court's decision ... to require the chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the building that houses that court to be in error," Hostettler told reporters. "When the legislative branch, that is the Congress believes the judicial branch to be in error, the Congress may refuse to fund actions to enforce the court's judgment by the executive branch agency that would execute those judgments."

   Rep. Artur Davis of the state's 7th District voted against the measure, warning: "I felt, frankly, that it was outrageous in that it would prevent the U.S. Marshals Office from carrying out a court order. The last thing we should do is not obeying orders from a court."

   The vote on the amendment was 260-161.

   In another resolution introduced by Hostettler, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court would be barred from enforcing its decision in the Pledge of Allegiance case. California Atheist and physician Michael Newdow objected to his daughter being compelled to recite the words "under God" in the pledge while attending public school, saying that such a practice violated the First Amendment. A panel of the Circuit Court agreed 2-1, and justices recently opined that would not hear further arguments in the case. The matter is now on appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court.

   House lawmakers approved the Hostettler resolution 307-119, a much wider margin than was mustered in the case of the Alabama Commandments fracas.

   Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wisconsin) said that at least in the case of the resolution seeking to keep the Commandments display in the Alabama Judicial Building, nothing would change as the result of the vote.

   "Never has an amendment been offered that did less than this amendment does," said Obey. He added that the Justice Department would not be charged with enforcement of the decision.

   Should the Alabama ruling stand, it is likely that the Commandments monument will be removed from the foyer of the state's court building. Extending the decision to schools, county courthouses or other venues, though, may be problematic said Barry Friedman, law professor at New York University.

   "It's plainly an attack on what the courts have done, and should the Senate go along and the president, it would be judged as an attack on the courts.

   "My sense is that the effectiveness of rulings like this doesn't actually depend on the U.S. Marshals doing anything; it depends on other actors in society deciding to comply with a court ruling."

   Princeton University political scientist Keith E. Whittington told the Washington Times that while Congress can curb statutory authority, it may not have the legal clout to challenge a court decision dealing with fundamental constitutional matters like the establishment of religion. Still, said Whittington, it will be up to "superintendents, school boards and principals" who will have the final say on how the decision impacts local schools. Critics point out that in Alabama, there has been a history of "resistance" to courts trying to end unconstitutional activities like prayer and religious proselytizing in classrooms and public school athletic events.

   Editorials in Alabama media are describing the resolutions as examples of "House demagoguery," "ludicrous" and deserving a "mercy killing by kindly members of Congress."

   "But that assumes our elected leaders can spot a preposterous idea when they see one," wrote one pundit.

[text only]