Pledge vote may benefit Matheson
Matheson was among just 39 Democrats who joined 221 Republicans to pass a bill designed to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges who might try to stop schoolchildren from reciting it, because of the phrase "under God."
The bill is part of the GOP's "American Values Agenda," designed to highlight differences between the parties on issues important to conservatives — and to help rally the Republicans' conservative base in upcoming elections.
But Matheson voted with the Republicans, showing he can be a moderate who acts independently from his party — which may help in his strongly Republican and conservative district.
"The Pledge of Allegiance asserts a fundamental principle of faith upon which our nation depends," Matheson said. "I don't see where reciting the pledge infringes on the freedom to worship or not worship God according to an individual's own beliefs and creeds."
The day before, Matheson was one of just 34 Democrats who voted for another bill on the "American Values Agenda," for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.
In Congress, Reps. Chris Cannon and Rob Bishop, R-Utah, also voted for the bill that would deny jurisdiction to the federal courts to questions about the constitutionality of the pledge, and leave the matter to individual states.
Cannon said, "If different states come to different decisions regarding the constitutionality of the pledge, then their decisions hold sway only within those states and not on the whims of activist federal judges."
Most Democrats argued that the bill undercuts judicial independence and could deny access to federal courts to religious minorities seeking to defend their rights.
"We are making an all-out assault on the Constitution," said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
The bill must still be passed by the Senate, and its future there is uncertain.
The measure grew out of a 2002 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed that ruling in 2004 on technical grounds, saying a Sacramento atheist who brought the suit did not have legal standing to sue on behalf of his daughter because her mother had custody.
Contributing: Associated Press
E-mail: lee@desnews.com
You can be the first to comment on this story.