Congressman Todd Akin
Pledge Protection Act, H.R. 2028
Thu Jun 19 23:56:11 2003
208.152.73.56

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200306/POL20030619d.html


Lawmakers Line up Behind Pledge of Allegiance
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
June 19, 2003

(CNSNews.com) - A year after a federal appeals court ruled unconstitutional the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, House members are getting ready to pass a bill they say would affirm the constitutionality of the pledge and restrict the jurisdiction of lower courts from ruling on it.

Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) introduced the Pledge Protection Act, H.R. 2028, to keep the words "under God" in the recitation. The measure already has the support of 218 co-sponsors, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.)

"We tried to look for something we could do legislatively to restrict or in some way protect the Pledge of Allegiance but also restrict some of this activist mentality of these very liberal judges," Akin told CNSNews.com.

The one-sentence bill says the lower federal courts do not have the authority to hear any case that charges the recitation of the pledge is a violation of the First Amendment. Lawmakers cited as their authority Article III, Section II of the Constitution, which authorizes Congress to restrict the jurisdiction of what lower federal courts can hear.

"In other words, we're just taking it off their plate. They don't have the authority to hear the case to begin with, let alone to come up with a ruling on it...and we have a commitment from the Senate that they're going to try to move the same bill ahead," Akin said.

A legal analyst denounced the move, however, as an effort to exclude the courts from their rightful role of ruling on constitutional issues.

"I don't think the proper response to a serious constitutional question is to deprive the courts of answering the question because you're afraid of what the answer might be," said David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

"The pledge is either constitutional or it's not, and the courts should properly play a role in telling us whether it's constitutional or not," Cole said.

One court has already declared the pledge unconstitutional. In a 2-1 decision last year that stunned lawmakers, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, ruled that the reference to God violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

The decision triggered a rally of support for the pledge on Capitol Hill. About 150 House members gathered on the steps outside the Capitol and recited the Pledge of Allegiance in a show of support. The Senate quickly passed a resolution 99-0 in support of the pledge. Through a spokesman, President Bush denounced the court ruling as "a wrong decision."

On February 28, the original panel of the federal appeals court declined to rehear the case. In addition, the entire court of nine justices declined to review it as a panel, said David Madden, a spokesman for the court. The case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

However, Cole said measures such as the one currently before Congress always have come up short because it is the role of the court to decide constitutional questions. "And it is highly questionable for Congress to deprive the federal courts of the authority to decide a constitutional question," he said.

In the past, Congress has sought to curtail federal court jurisdiction on controversial constitutional issues, including proposals on court-ordered school busing, abortion, school prayer, quotas for hiring or getting rid of male athletic teams.

Akin said the 9th U.S. District Court ruling flies in the face of what a vast majority of Americans believe - that their inalienable rights come from a creator and that the pledge refers to that.

"The federal courts have not been doing their constitutional function of interpreting law, but they've been creating law," Akin said.

"If we're interested in the Constitution, the Constitution gives the Congress the authority to establish the lower federal courts, and we could abolish the lower federal courts and that would be completely constitutional," Akin said.

"The Founders made the legislative branch strong enough that they could restrict the jurisdiction on these federal courts, and so we're simply doing what the Constitution allows us to do," he added.

The Pledge of Allegiance was codified by Congress in 1942 as: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed an amended version, which reads: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

See Earlier Story:
Appeals Court Refuses to Review Pledge of Allegiance Ruling (Feb. 28, 2003)
------------------------------------------------
Congressman Todd Akin - Second District of Missouri In the News Press Release Archive May 6, 2003 Press Conference on Pledge Protection Act Resolution prohibits lower federal courts from ruling on Pledge´s constitutionality Washington, D.C. - On Thursday, May 8, Congressman Todd Akin (R-MO) will hold a pr
http://akin.house.gov/release/20030506.html

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515 (202) 224-3121 TTY: (202) 225-1904
http://www.house.gov/

Congressman Bart Gordon - 07-03-02 One Nation Under God July 3, 2002, Middle Tennesseans have told me they are outraged about the federal court ruling in California calling the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of the words "under God." The two California judges issuing the decision have exceeded a
http://gordon.house.gov/NR/exeres/650E361A-E2F2-4FE7-AA83-73A1BF556A97.htm

Norwood (GA10) - Weekly Column - One Nation, Under God? America´s Defining Challenge For the New Century  Last week the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued a ruling that would set the U.S. Constitution on its head - if it were upheld. The 9th Circuit ruled that the voluntary reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools w
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/ga09_norwood/c40007042002.html

• Thank you for contacting me — Rep. Tom Allen, Fri Jun 20 00:21

APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES