WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House, citing the nation's religious origins, voted Wednesday to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges who might try to stop schoolchildren and others from reciting it because of the phrase ''under God.''
The legislation, a priority of social conservatives, passed 260-167. It now goes to the Senate where its future is uncertain.
''We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage,'' said Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn. ''It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God.''
Opponents said the legislation, which would bar federal courts from ruling on the constitutional validity of the pledge, would undercut judicial independence and would deny access to federal courts to religious minorities seeking to defend their rights. . . .
[T]he pledge bill would deny jurisdiction to federal courts, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to decide questions pertaining to the interpretation or constitutionality of the pledge. State courts could still decide whether the pledge is valid within the state.
This is so stupid on so many levels that I hardly know where to start.
How about here: The issue is whether the pledge's "under God" language violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution when public school children are required to recite it.
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that "The judicial power [of the federal courts] shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution . . . ." Like, for example, cases challenging whether the pledge violates the First Amendment.
Although congress may be able to giveth and taketh away some aspects of the federal courts' jurisdiction, they cannot take away its power to address "cases . . . arising under this Constitution," which is granted by the Constitution itself. At least, congress cannot do so without amending the Constitution, which is not at issue here. This "pledge bill" is itself blatantly unconstitutional.
Further, even if this bill passed the senate and was upheld (which is an impossibility), it would leave the issue of the constitutionality of the pledge up to the state courts in all fifty states. That would be far more likely to result in at least some states declaring the pledge unconstitutional than would the current situation in the federal courts. In other words, even if the bill passed, it would likely backfire and end up achieving the opposite of what its authors pretend to seek.
But, of course, the authors of the bill don't actually care about the pledge. They care about energizing voters in the religious right, and about deflecting attention from the Bush administration's catastrophic foreign policy failures and attacks on our civil rights. As yesterday's Daily Journal reported:
The Republican leadership [sic] in Congress is pushing the pledge measure as part of its election year "American Values Agenda" which includes bills banning same-sex marriage and human cloning, among others. The intent, political expert say, is to rally the conservative base for the forthcoming elections.
We should not tolerate this crap from our elected officials, particularly at a time when there are so many "real" issues confronting our nation and the world.
Details here from the AP via the New York Times.