"...an all-out assautl on the Constitution" - Congressional restrictions on judicial review of "The Pledge"

[Leigh Meyers <leighcmeyers@xxxxxxxxx>]

> The pledge bill was part of the House GOP's "American values agenda"
> that House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said would "defend
> America's founding principles." Another part of that agenda, a
> constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, was defeated in the
> House on Tuesday.
>
> Also on Wednesday, the House was voting on legislation that would
> designate a 29-foot-high cross as a federal war memorial to prevent it
> from being removed from public land in San Diego.


House OKs bill guarding Pledge from courts

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer 35 minutes ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060719/ap_on_go_co/pledge_protection_7

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 (news, bio, voting record), 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.

"We are making an all-out assault on the Constitution of the United
States which, thank God, will fail," said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi,
D-Calif.

The 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.

The legislation grew out of a 2002 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public
schools.

The Supreme Court in 2004 reversed that decision on a technicality,
saying Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow did not have legal standing to
sue on behalf of his daughter because the mother had custody of the
child. Newdow has since revived the case and last year a U.S. District
Judge ruled in his favor.

Newdow, an attorney and medical doctor, said in an interview that he
hoped the bill would pass to expose the aims of its supporters. "They're
willing to ruin this country so they can keep their God in our country.
I love the fact that they are having a vote." He said he expected a
final ruling in his case in about a year.

Supporters argued that the "under God" phrase, added to the pledge in
1954, was intrinsic to the nation's heritage and traditions and must be
shielded from unelected judges. "This is an issue that clearly resonates
to what we are about as a country," said House Republican Whip Roy
Blunt, R-Mo.

Rep. Todd Akin (news, bio, voting record), R-Mo., who sponsored the
measure, said that denying a child the right to recite the pledge was a
form of censorship. "We believe that there is a God who gives basic
rights to all people and it is the job of the government to protect
those rights."

Davison Douglas, a professor at the William and Mary School of Law, said
constitutional scholars are divided over whether such congressional
restrictions on judicial review would pass constitutional muster.

He noted that "past efforts to bar all federal court review of
hot-button social issues have consistently failed. Hence, if this bill
is enacted, it would be a highly significant landmark in terms of
congressional efforts to control the actions of federal courts."

There is a companion Senate bill, but it is unclear whether the Senate
will take it up in the current session.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said that while he supported the
pledge and disagreed with the 9th Circuit Court's ruling, the bill would
"intrude on the principle of separation of powers, degrade our
independent federal judiciary and set a dangerous precedent."

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., said the
effort to strip courts of authority could come back to haunt his fellow
conservatives if liberals gain control of Congress in the future. As an
example, he said Congress could prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on
a state's decision to ban guns.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for
Separation of Church and State, said that under the bill, "religious
minorities will no longer have the right to go to federal court to
defend their deeply held religious beliefs."

The pledge bill was part of the House GOP's "American values agenda"
that House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said would "defend America's
founding principles." Another part of that agenda, a constitutional
amendment to ban gay marriage, was defeated in the House on Tuesday.

Also on Wednesday, the House was voting on legislation that would
designate a 29-foot-high cross as a federal war memorial to prevent it
from being removed from public land in San Diego.

___

The bill is H.R. 2389

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/