Less than five weeks before Election Day, and just days before lawmakers go home for the year, this should be a time when Congress wraps up crucial unfinished business, such as the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission and the spending bills necessary to keep government running.
But the House also has just voted to prevent courts from ruling on whether the phrase “under God” can be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. Representatives also are expected to vote this week on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, an issue that has failed in the Senate.
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans may revive a proposed constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning.
What is striking about these measures is that they have little chance of becoming law. Rather, they are either a valid way for GOP leaders to highlight differences between the parties or a cheap political tactic to embarrass Democrats before an election. It depends on whom you ask.
“It’s the Republicans’ chance to create a 30-second campaign slogan,” said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “They don’t care if it passes.”
The same-sex marriage amendment, for example, was defeated in the Senate by a wide margin; House passage would do little except send a signal.
And a bill to prevent courts from removing “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance–the House passed it last Thursday on a 247-173 vote–almost certainly won’t be considered by the Senate this year. Although the House spent hours debating the bill, similar legislation hasbeen shot down several times by the Senate or was overruled by the Supreme Court.
Republicans say they are serious about the votes on these hot-button topics and denied they are holding them for political reasons. They contend such issues are important to the life of the United States and what it stands for.
“There is nothing political about preventing the desecration of our nation’s flag,” said Christine Shott, spokeswoman for Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).
Sometimes referred to as “wedge issues,” these topics can be used to remind voters where their elected officials–and presidential candidates–stand.
Democrats say the votes are meant to divert public attention from work that Congress has yet to complete before it breaks Oct. 8 to allow members of Congress to campaign before the Nov. 2 election. Republicans say there is nothing wrong with forcing Democrats to go on the record about these issues.
By voting against the bills or not showing up for a vote, some Democrats could appear out-of-step or irresponsible, political analysts say.
Among others, the votes could affect Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), his running mate Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) and lawmakers in tight races, such as Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, who is seeking re-election in South Dakota.
“I suppose if I were a Democrat and I opposed something my constituents support, I would not want to vote on it, either,” said Stuart Roy, spokesman for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas).
GOP `smoke signals’
Republicans are trying to send political “smoke signals” to their strongest supporters, said Lawrence Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota.
This common election-year tactic “is primarily aimed at the already persuaded,” Jacobs said. “They are just sending messages, saying, `We are your friend–we hear you, you social conservatives, we haven’t sold you out.'”
It also could backfire, said Jacobs, making it difficult for Republicans running in more moderate districts to sway undecided voters.
More Top Picks Best Dual Monitor Arms
Still, Republican leaders clearly believe such moves work in their favor.
The Pledge Protection Act passed by the House on Thursday, for example, would strip the Supreme Court and all other federal courts of the authority to hear cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance. If passed by the Senate and signed by President Bush, it would give state courts the power to decide “under God” cases that challenge the wording or recitation of the pledge as a violation of the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom.
Critics say the legislation is a waste of time because, among other things, it violates the Constitution, which limits the power each branch of government has over the others. The Supreme Court has ultimate authority over cases involving the Constitution.
That’s why this bill won’t get far, detractors said: The Supreme Court will never cut itself out of the process.
On another issue, Republican senators are expected to bring to a vote a proposed constitutional amendment that would make it illegal to burn or otherwise desecrate the American flag. Critics say that if passed, it would be the first amendment to limit free speech.
Flag-desecration amendment
The flag-desecration amendment passes almost annually in the House. It failed in the Senate by four votes in 2000. Kerry and Edwards voted against the amendment that year.
Civil libertarians say Republicans are using the flag amendment to make Democrats appear unpatriotic at a time when U.S. troops are fighting in Iraq.
“It’s silly season now,” said Terri Schroeder, legal analyst for the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the amendment. “It’s certainly a waste of time.”
Many Republicans say the Democrats are fussing too much about the timing of the vote.
“Why are the Democrats so scared to go on the record about it again?” said Don Stewart, spokesman for Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). “If you’re for or against the amendment, when does it matter when you vote?”
Next week, the House could vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The amendment, which Bush supports, would define marriage as “the union of a man and a woman.”
The proposed amendment fell far short in the Senate in July, with 48 senators voting for it and 50 against.
To become a constitutional amendment, it must win a two-thirds majority in each house–67 votes in the Senate and 290 in the House. Three-fourths of the states then must approve it within seven years for it to take effect.
Neither Kerry nor Edwards was present for the July vote. Both say they oppose same-sex marriage, but that an amendment to ban it is divisive and unnecessary.