The Congressional myth caucus revisited

Last month, I mocked two especially stupid bills in the House of Representatives. The first opposes the US dropping the dollar and the second opposes creation of a NAFTA superhighway. Unfortunately, both bills are based on misperceptions (see here and here, respectively). At the time, I dubbed the members of the House who sponsored or cosponsored both bills "The Congressional myth caucus." Well, it's time to give nine of them a promotion.

As Jon Stewart pointed out on the Daily Show, Rep. Pete Hoekstra has introduced a constitutional amendment to protect parents' rights based on the supposed threat posed by the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been signed by every country except the US and Somalia. The supposed threat to parents' rights posed by the treaty is, as Stewart puts it, "Sh*t that's never going to happen." Here's the clip:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Sh#t That's Never Gonna Happen - Global Currency
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

When we compare the cosponsorship list for Hoekstra's amendment with the list of supporters of the other two bills, we can construct a new list of nine representatives who sponsored or cosponsored all three bills. Here they are -- the elite members of the Congressional myth caucus:

Michelle Bachmann (R-MN)
Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD)
Paul Broun (R-GA)
Mary Fallin (R-OK)
Trent Franks (R-AZ)
Phil Gingrey (R-GA)
Kenny Marchant (R-TX)
Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI)
Zach Wamp (R-TN)

However, the list has at least one notable exception -- Rep. Bill Posey, a freshman member from Florida. In addition to cosponsoring the phony dollar-protection resolution, Posey has introduced legislation that would require presidential candidates to provide their birth certificate. The bill is inspired by the misperception that Barack Obama has a forged birth certificate and is not an American citizen, a topic on which Posey refused to express an opinion, saying he hadn't "looked at the evidence." Stephen Colbert provided an amusing response to Posey's insinuations during a segment in March and a followup segment in April:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bill Posey Alligator Rumors
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Gay Marriage

Incidentally, Posey's bill is so outlandish that it has attracted zero cosponsors -- not even Michelle Bachmann, the sponsor of the dollar resolution who was last seen trying to insinuate that Democratic presidents are somehow responsible for swine flu. When a bill like this doesn't attract Bachmann's support, you know it's bad.

Comments

[David]

Consider this hypothetical example:

Parents want their 15-year old child to attend a particular church. The child sues to prevent the parents from forcing her to go to this church.

If the US had signed this UN treaty, is there a chance that a judge would rule for the child, based on the "freedom of religion"? Of course there is. So, Stewart is wrong when he confidently asserts that this treaty could never infringe parents' rights.

I suspect that many liberals would be on the child's side in such a suit. That attitude would equate to, "I don't mind if it happens", rather than "It ain't going to happen."

I do agree that the Constitutional Amendment won't pass. Nevertheless, a camnpaign for the Amendment may be a useful way to focus on parents' rights. E.g., the Equal Rights Amendment never passed, but that campaign helped women gain their full rights through a combination of legislation and judicial decdisions.

[daniel rotter]

Since when is a child REFUSING to go to a church an example of "freedom of religion?" That's like claiming that someone is exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights by choosing not to own a gun.

[David]

daniel, there are SC decisions holding that a child in school cannot be forced to recite a prayer or even to listen to one. I believe that these decisions are based on Freedom of Religion. However, Freedom of Religion doesn't currently apply to a child when it's his parent who is deciding on what church the family should attend. However, if the US signs a treaty guaranteeing Freedom of Religion to children, then I think a judge might well hold that parents were limiting in their ability to force their children into particular religions.

BTW, generalizing from my example, ISTM if the US signs this treaty, it will either have no effect or it will increase children's rights by decreasing parents' rights. In the former case, there's no need for us to sign it. In the latter case, our signing the treaty would reduce parents' rights, contradicting Stewart's predicion. (Actually, I'm not 100% sure what the "it" was in Stewart's rant. I think he used the word "it" to mean a reduction in parents' rights, but there was some ambiguity.)

[Kandis]

Parental rights already have limits, ask the parents of
Andrew Wantland
Robyn Twitchell
Ashley King
Ian Lundman
These children died because of the parent's refusal to seek medical care, preferring their religious belief in faith healing.

[daniel rotter]

"I believe that these decisions that these decisions are based on Freedom of Religion."

I doubt it. It sounds like the decisions you mentioned were based more on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, not the "freedom of religion" portion of that same Amendment.

[daniel rotter]

To clarify: It sounds like the decisions you mentioned were based more on VIOLATIONS OF the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, not on violations against the "freedom of religion" portion of the same Amendment.