Several news outlets (The Washington Post, for example) reported yesterday on a bill that "would prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on whether the words 'under God' should be stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance." Thankfully, the folks at the Associated Press don't feel it important enough to mention the bill number, so this information required some searching.

The bill in question is not H.R. 3893, the We the People Act, which I wrote about back in June. The bill is H.R. 2028, the Pledge Protection Act of 2003. It specifically refers to the Pledge of Allegiance and is about one sentence long:

No court established by Act of Congress shall have jurisdiction to hear or determine any claim that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, as set forth in section 4 of title 4, violates the first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

And the worst part is that Congress does have the power to tell the courts what they can and cannot rule on. Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says that the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction (the ability to hear appeals on cases from lower courts) "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." Also note that the federal court system is not established in the Constitution, even though the power to establish such a system is granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8. The federal court system was established by Congress back in 1789, and since it was established by Congress, it can be regulated by Congress.

This isn't the end for this bill. It goes now to the Senate, where it will hopefully be struck down. While Congress has the power to limit the ability of the courts to rule on particular matters, it is a power that should not be used lightly, as it is being used here. The House is attempting to advocate a particular agenda whose constitutionality is still in question. When the Supreme Court ruled on Newdow v. Elk Grove Unified School District, it by no means answered the questions presented. It wussed out and bought itself time before it would have to hear the issue again. Where is the democratic tradition of debate? The House would like to see it gone; it would rather stifle the debate altogether.