Somebody else check this out (HR. 2028.RH) and make sure I am reading it correctly.
Is that a bill in the House of Representatives stating that the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional? Does it really say that the courts do not have the power to decide whether or not something is in violation of constitutional rights?
Somebody tell me I interpreted that incorrectly. Tell me that the legislative branch of our government is not trying to work its way around the judicial branch.
Regardless of whether or not the current Pledge of Allegiance violates the rights of non-believers, a bill circumventing the power of the judicial system is a frightening thing.
I am really disturbed by this bill.
Posted by Randy at September 23, 2004 11:09 PM | TrackBackBelieve it or not, Congress often makes noises about taking authority over constitutionality away from the judiciary. I don't know that the concept has ever been tested, though; I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court would hold a shredder party in chambers if such a provision ran across its desk. Although the inferior courts are established by legislation, the Supreme Court is a constitutional body, so I don't think this bill has legal legs.
Posted by: Wilson at September 23, 2004 11:46 PMWell technically you could amend the Supreme Court out of the picture and there'd be absolutely nothing they could do about it.
Looking at the bill however, it seems to be aimed at heading off what you could call a landmark lawsuit that would generate dangerous judicial precedents.
I must admit, this is a clever bill. It immediatly removes jurisdiction from the lower level courts, meaning that the pledge cannot even be challenged there, and cuts off the possibility of appealing.
Can the Supreme Court rule on an issue that is not even allowed to be brought to trial? I suspect not. I agree with the sentiment of those who wrote the bill, but I disagree with the means.
Even legal scholars don't seem sure about how much power Congress has here. However, I think that the Supreme Court could probably try the case anyway:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.It seems to me, therefore, that if somebody sued a state to keep the pledge out of its schools, the Supreme Court might claim original jurisdiction. However, the current Court would probably uphold the pledge (future Supreme Courts might not); for now, the lower federal courts are generally the problem. Posted by: Wilson at September 24, 2004 08:52 PM
I'm amazed that they don't solve the problem by rolling back the changes to the pledge made in oh...the 40s or 50s I believe. You know, those little words "under God." Oh well, that would probably cause a knee-jerk reaction among the Christians and pseudo-Christians.
Posted by: Gillis at September 25, 2004 10:25 AM