In a sign that the United States Congress is increasingly dominated by a faction of conservative fundamentalist Christian theocrats, the House of Representatives on Wednesday, June 15 2005 passed House Amendment 278, the Hostettler Amendment to H.R. 2862, in a 242-182 vote. The short amendment simply reads:

None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used to enforce the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in the case of Russelburg v. Gibson County, decided January 31, 2005.

Rep. John Hostettler, Republican of Indiana, explained the impact of his amendment: “This legislation [H.R. 2862] is where we fund any executive agency that would enforce the Southern District Court of Indiana’s judgment in this case. My amendment would prevent any funds within that act from being used to enforce the erroneous decision in Russelburg v. Gibson County, and I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.”

In Russelburg v. Gibson County, a federal judge ruled that the display of a “Ten Commandments” monument (with text partially and questionably appropriated from the Christian Bible’s Exodus Chapter 20) in front of the Gibson County courthouse was an unconstitutional government endorsement of a particular religion.

Hostettler continued his remarks:

“This decision is inconsistent with both the clear intent of the framers and the Christian heritage of the United States…. While it is true this opinion is consistent with more recent Supreme Court decisions, it is time that Congress exercise its authority to end the practical effect of this judicial misunderstanding.”

These comments echoed Hostettler’s earlier thoughts on the case, presented at a meeting of the Christian Coalition: “Federal courts have no army or navy…. The court can opine, decide, talk about, sing, whatever it wants to do. We’re not saying they can’t do that. At the end of the day, we’re saying the court can’t enforce its opinions.”

Let’s boil it down, then, shall we? To my eye, there are three salient points here.

First, Rep. Hostettler’s unique theory of government is that the judicial branch can opine, talk, and sing, but that the courts have no legal right to have their judgments actually carried out. Instead, members of Congress should decide which judgments they do personally like, which judgments they don’t personally like, and be able to block the courts from carrying out any decision they don’t personally like, bing, just like that. In other words, the court system should according to Hostettler no longer have any independent legal authority. Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, rose in opposition on June 15 to make this very point:

“To fail to enforce court orders, to arrogate to this body the right to say that we do not like a particular decision, we do not agree with the court’s interpretation of the Constitution, we do not agree with the court’s interpretation of a law that we passed, therefore they may not enforce the law, is to say that we are no longer a Nation of laws. It is to say that we are no longer a Nation governed by a Constitution…. The court orders must be enforced, and anyone who says that we shall not spend money to enforce a court order because I do not like that particular court order or we do not agree with that particular court order is subversive of liberty, subversive of the Constitution, subversive of every human right, and subversive of the very notion of American liberty and democracy.”

Second, the way that the Hostettler Amendment was phrased is indicative of a new and shockingly successful strategy by fundamentalist regressives in the Congress: the drafting and passage of legislation that does not apply to the general case, but rather only to particular people, places or circumstances. It used to be that laws were articulations of general principles regarding discrimination, taxation, and criminal justice that applied equally to everybody. This approach was articulated in the notion that every person should be equal under the law.

Apparently, the new regressive majority in the Congress believes that equality under the law is an outmoded, inappropriate idea. The Hostettler Amendment is only one instance in which the Congress has passed laws applying only to one case (here, a single court case). So far in 2005 alone, there have been two other high-profile instances in which Congress has decided to make certain people unequal under the law. H.R. 418 (The “REAL ID” Act) permits politically-appointed Homeland Security bureaucrats to nullify laws in border regions however they see fit so that a new fence can be built. Here, people living near the border are made “less equal” than the rest of us (and that bureaucrat is made “more equal” — into a dictator, in fact). S. 686, approved by Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, got even more particular, stating that “Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act” (all two of them) but that “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim” (the rest of us). This is a decidedly unfriendly, decidedly unequal, and decidedly unfair trend in legislating.

Third, the remarks of Rep. Hostettler show the increasing boldness of fundamentalist conservative Christians in declaring their power to shove their parochial religious standards down everybody else’s throat. Hostettler’s standard for whether a law should stand: whether it falls in line with “the Christian heritage of the United States.” Government by religious standards? That’s called theocracy. History tells us what happens under theocracies, and it ain’t pretty.

It would keep some of my neatly preconceived cognitive boundaries intact to report to you that the Hostettler Amendment was passed thanks to the unanimous support of Republicans, and over the consistent objections of Democrats. But that just isn’t true. 38 Democrats voted in support of the Hostettler Amendment, and that support was not just symbolic. Without the votes by these 38 Democrats, the Hostettler Amendment would not have passed. The following members of Congress may be nominal members of the Democratic Party, but they demonstrated by their actions in the past week that they are not acting as friends of our democratic, constitutional republic:

Rep. John Barrow, Democrat of Georgia, representing District 12. Progressive Action Score: 0/100. (Contact Rep. Barrow)
Rep. Marion Berry, Democrat of Arkansas, representing District 1. Progressive Action Score: 33/100. (Contact Rep. Berry)
Rep. Sanford Bishop, Democrat of Georgia, representing District 2. Progressive Action Score: 33/100. (Contact Rep. Bishop)
Rep. Dan Boren, Democrat of Oklahoma, representing District 2. Progressive Action Score: 8/100. (Contact Rep. Boren)
Rep. Leonard Boswell, Democrat of Iowa, representing District 3. Progressive Action Score: 33/100. (Contact Rep. Boswell)
Rep. Allen Boyd, Democrat of Florida, representing District 2. Progressive Action Score: 33/100. (Contact Rep. Boyd)
Rep. Dennis Cardoza, Democrat of California, representing District 18. Progressive Action Score: 17/100. (Contact Rep. Cardoza)
Rep. Ben Chandler, Democrat of Kentucky, representing District 6. Progressive Action Score: 0/100. (Contact Rep. Chandler)
Rep. Jerry Costello, Democrat of Illinois, representing District 12. Progressive Action Score: 33/100. (Contact Rep. Costello)
Rep. Robert (Bud) Cramer, Democrat of Alabama, representing District 5. Progressive Action Score: 0/100. (Contact Rep. Cramer)
Rep. Lincoln Davis, Democrat of Tennessee, representing District 4. Progressive Action Score: 8/100. (Contact Rep. Davis)
Rep. Bob Etheridge, Democrat of North Carolina, representing District 2. Progressive Action Score: 42/100. (Contact Rep. Etheridge)
Rep. Bart Gordon, Democrat of Tennessee, representing District 6. Progressive Action Score: 17/100. (Contact Rep. Gordon)
Rep. Gene Green, Democrat of Texas, representing District 29. Progressive Action Score: 33/100. (Contact Rep. Green)
Rep. Stephanie Herseth, Democrat of South Dakota. Progressive Action Score: 17/100. (Contact Rep. Herseth)
Rep. Brian Higgins, Democrat of New York, representing District 27. Progressive Action Score: 42/100. (Contact Rep. Higgins)
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, Democrat of Texas, representing District 15. Progressive Action Score: 25/100. (Contact Rep. Hinojosa)
Rep. Marcy Kaptur, Democrat of Ohio, representing District 9. Progressive Action Score: 67/100. (Contact Rep. Kaptur)
Rep. James Langevin, Democrat of Rhode Island, representing District 2. Progressive Action Score: 58/100. (Contact Rep. Langevin)
Rep. Daniel Lipinski, Democrat of Illinois, representing District 3. Progressive Action Score: 17/100. (Contact Rep. Lipinski)
Rep. Stephen Lynch, Democrat of Massachusetts, representing District 9. Progressive Action Score: 42/100. (Contact Rep. Lynch)
Rep. Jim Marshall, Democrat of Georgia, representing District 3. Progressive Action Score: 0/100. (Contact Rep. Marshall)
Rep. Jim Matheson, Democrat of Utah, representing District 2. Progressive Action Score: 17/100. (Contact Rep. Matheson)
Rep. Mike McIntyre, Democrat of North Carolina, representing District 7. Progressive Action Score: 0/100. (Contact Rep. McIntyre)
Rep. Charlie Melancon, Democrat of Louisiana, representing District 3. Progressive Action Score: 8/100. (Contact Rep. Melancon)
Rep. Dennis Moore, Democrat of Kansas, representing District 3. Progressive Action Score: 67/100. (Contact Rep. Moore)
Rep. Solomon Ortiz, Democrat of Texas, representing District 27. Progressive Action Score: 25/100. (Contact Rep. Ortiz)
Rep. Collin Peterson, Democrat of Minnesota, representing District 7. Progressive Action Score: 33/100. (Contact Rep. Peterson)
Rep. Earl Pomeroy, Democrat of North Dakota. Progressive Action Score: 17/100. (Contact Rep. Pomeroy)
Rep. Nick Rahall, Democrat of West Virginia, representing District 3. Progressive Action Score: 17/100. (Contact Rep. Rahall)
Rep. Silvestre Reyes, Democrat of Texas, representing District 16. Progressive Action Score: 17/100. (Contact Rep. Reyes)
Rep. Mike Ross, Democrat of Arkansas, representing District 4. Progressive Action Score: 33/100. (Contact Rep. Ross)
Rep. John Salazar, Democrat of Colorado, representing District 3. Progressive Action Score: 25/100. (Contact Rep. Salazar)
Rep. David Scott, Democrat of Georgia, representing District 13. Progressive Action Score: 17/100. (Contact Rep. Scott)
Rep. Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri, representing District 4. Progressive Action Score: 8/100. (Contact Rep. Skelton)
Rep. John Tanner, Democrat of Tennessee, representing District 8. Progressive Action Score: 17/100. (Contact Rep. Tanner)
Rep. Gene Taylor, Democrat of Mississippi, representing District 4. Progressive Action Score: 25/100. (Contact Rep. Taylor)
Rep. Albert Wynn, Democrat of Maryland, representing District 4. Progressive Action Score: 58/100. (Contact Rep. Wynn)

There are also 20 Republicans who did the right thing, for whatever reason, in this case. The following Republicans voted “NO” on the Hostettler Amendment and should be congratulated for their courage in this instance:

Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, Republican of New York, representing District 24. Progressive Action Score: 25/100. (Contact Rep. Boehlert)
Rep. Michael Castle, Republican of Delaware. Progressive Action Score: 17/100. (Contact Rep. Castle)
Rep. Tom Davis, Republican of Virginia, representing District 11. Progressive Action Score: 8/100. (Contact Rep. Davis)
Rep. Charles Dent, Republican of Pennsylvania, representing District 15. Progressive Action Score: 0/100. (Contact Rep. Dent)
Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, Republican of Maryland, representing District 1. Progressive Action Score: 8/100. (Contact Rep. Gilchrest)
Rep. Kay Granger, Republican of Texas, representing District 12. Progressive Action Score: 0/100. (Contact Rep. Granger)
Rep. Nancy Johnson, Republican of Connecticut, representing District 5. Progressive Action Score: 17/100. (Contact Rep. Johnson)
Rep. Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, representing District 1. Progressive Action Score: 0/100. (Contact Rep. Kingston)
Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, Republican of Illinois, representing District 10. Progressive Action Score: 17/100. (Contact Rep. Kirk)
Rep. Joe Knollenberg, Republican of Michigan, representing District 9. Progressive Action Score: 0/100. (Contact Rep. Knollenberg)
Rep. Jim Kolbe, Republican of Arizona, representing District 8. Progressive Action Score: 8/100. (Contact Rep. Kolbe)
Rep. Jerry Lewis, Republican of California, representing District 41. Progressive Action Score: 0/100. (Contact Rep. Lewis)
Rep. Daniel Lungren, Republican of California, representing District 3. Progressive Action Score: 8/100. (Contact Rep. Lungren)
Rep. John McHugh, Republican of New York, representing District 23. Progressive Action Score: 0/100. (Contact Rep. McHugh)
Rep. Devin Nunes, Republican of California, representing District 21. Progressive Action Score: 0/100. (Contact Rep. Nunes)
Rep. Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut, representing District 4. Progressive Action Score: 42/100. (Contact Rep. Shays)
Rep. John Sweeney, Republican of New York, representing District 20. Progressive Action Score: 8/100. (Contact Rep. Sweeney)
Rep. William Thomas, Republican of California, representing District 22. Progressive Action Score: 0/100. (Contact Rep. Thomas)
Rep. Heather Wilson, Republican of New Mexico, representing District 1. Progressive Action Score: 8/100. (Contact Rep. Wilson)
Rep. Frank Wolf, Republican of Virginia, representing District 10. Progressive Action Score: 0/100. (Contact Rep. Wolf)