There is currently a bill making it’s way through the house that would remove the jurisdiction over the Pledge of Allegiance from the Federal court system.
Amends the Federal judicial code to deny jurisdiction to any Federal court, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of the Pledge of Allegiance or its validity under the Constitution.
Can I ask what the point is? Even if the federal courts keep their noses out of it, each and every state will have to fight legal battles over whether the pledge can be used in the schools. And you can bet that there are plenty of activist groups out there that are willing to fight the pledge 50 times.Â
I see two sides to this. On the one side, the states are supposed to be in charge of the school systems, so it makes sense that they would be in charge of whether the pledge is used or not.  However, on the other side, the pledge is a pledge to the United States, not the State of North Dakota. So who should really have jurisdiction? How bout the parents. How about we don’t let one detractor make the policies for us any more? Put it to a vote. If the citizens of a State wish the schools to use the pledge of allegiance, then it’s in.Â
You can read more on HR 2389 at congress.org.
Technorati Tags: congress, house, hr2389, hr 2389, pledge of allegiance, pledge, states, federal
About Shane Ede
Interesting post. I actually hadn’t heard of this till you posted here. I see two things in this:
1) A group of strict constitutionalists are sick and tired of the appellate courts of California telling the entire 9th district (which includes such conservative states as Montana, Idaho, and Alaska) that the pledge of allegiance is constitutionally illegal because of “under God.” This has twice happened in the past two years alone. Once, it was appealed to the US Supreme Court who rule Michael Newdow(sp?) didn’t have standing — that he didn’t have the proper right to bring the constitutionality of the pledge to the court because he was not the legal custodian of his daughter who had to say the pledge at school. By doing this, the likes of Newdow would not be able to challenge the constitutionality of the pledge in federal courts – which basically means he can’t challenge period. Its a way of protecting the pledge from activist judges.
2) This also has the legal possibility of ‘sealing’ the previous California court ruling that the pledge is illegal, as that ruling stands until overturned – which if this bill passes the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to do. There may be more complicated legal matters here, and I may be entirely wrong with this second point, but I see this as a possible ‘backfire’ to the congressmens’ plans.
Those are my two cents (more like four and a half).
-Your little bro