March 15, 2006
House Passes Resolution in Support of Solomon Amendment
Whereas on March 6, 2006, the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 in favor of the Government in the case of Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., upholding the authority of Congress to withhold Federal funds from an institution of higher education that prevents military recruiters from gaining access to the institution's campus and students in a manner that is at least equal in quality and scope to that which is provided to any other employer;
Whereas this important decision comes at a time when the Nation finds itself at war and reaffirms the constitutional obligation of the Government to provide for the defense of the Nation;
Whereas the decision recognizes the authority of Congress under section 8 of article I of the Constitution to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
Whereas the national security interests of the United States are best served by a high level of military personnel readiness;
Whereas the ability of the Armed Forces to recruit the best possible candidates from the widest available pool of talent is of paramount importance to national security;
Whereas institutions of higher education are an important source of recruits for the Armed Forces;
Whereas an institution of higher education that prevents military recruiters from gaining access to the institution's campus or students in a manner that is at least equal in quality and scope to that which is provided to any other employer does a disservice to those students who desire the opportunity to serve in the Armed Forces; and
Whereas section 983 of title 10, United States Code, requires institutions of higher education to provide such equal access to military recruiters in order to be eligible for the receipt of certain Federal funds: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress expresses continued support for requiring an institution of higher education to provide military recruiters with access to the institution's campus and students at least equal in quality and scope to that which is provided to any other employer in order to be eligible for the receipt of certain Federal funds.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference House Passes Resolution in Support of Solomon Amendment:
» Denver Rep Opposes Military Recruiters from View From a Height
Last night, the House voted 347-65 in favor of a resolution supporting the Solomon Amendment. Surprisingly, all 65 who voted against were Democrats (Hat tip: Tax Prof) Among those voting against military recruiting on campuses receiving your tax money ... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 15, 2006 9:11:26 AM
» House Resolution Overwhelmingly Supports the Solomon Amendment: from The Volokh Conspiracy
TaxProf has the details. [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 15, 2006 9:43:01 AM
So who were the 65? What were their reasons?
Posted by: TM Lutas | Mar 15, 2006 9:59:30 AM
Click the link (the 347-65) and you'll see the list of yeah's and no's. The 65 include the usual suspects a number of progressive, liberal Democrats.
Posted by: Steve White | Mar 15, 2006 11:20:08 AM
Live by the sword of federal control through funding, die by the sword of federal control through funding. Tomorrow or next year or next decade the funding will be contingent on something else not necessarily congenial to those who like the idea of the military being able to recruit (or at least try to recruit) at Ivy League universities. What will fans of this result say when the condition is that one must provide equal access for Planned Parenthood or NARAL?
Posted by: Cornellian | Mar 15, 2006 11:22:38 AM
Is there a reason why we should be impressed by what the US House of Reps does after the fact?
Posted by: Bob Buchanan | Mar 15, 2006 11:45:11 AM
Hmm. Nancy Pelosi is among those voting "Nay." Does anyone know how she reconciles this vote with her assertion post-Kelo that Congressional action to limit funds to projects that relied on condemning private land for transfers to private entities would be unwise, since the Court's ruling in Kelo was almost "as if God had spoken"?
Posted by: Richard | Mar 15, 2006 6:07:10 PM
fsmvihl ampc gmcaeho rgjnclp lbfa pcgoyvka rexlv
Posted by: ehpy fnimo | May 22, 2008 1:03:11 PM