Flurry of resolutions follow case

More than a few members of Congress were unhappy with a California federal judge's ruling last week that the recitation of the pledge of allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional.

The ruling sparked the introduction of new resolutions into both chambers of Congress and brought special relevance to The Pledge Protection Act of 2005, introduced earlier this year.

Senate President Pro Tem Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, co-sponsored both a reaction resolution and the earlier Pledge Protection Act.

"He believes that the phrase, 'under God,' is a part of our American tradition," said Courtney Boone, press secretary for Stevens.

What the legislation means for the future of the pledge and the case is unclear. One of the bills introduced in response to the ruling proposes a constitutional amendment protecting the pledge. Others simply state the Senate's formal support of the pledge.

The Pledge Protection Act is a little different. The act seeks to take away court jurisdiction specifically on matters related to the recitation of the pledge.

The idea of a legislature being able to limit court jurisdiction on certain topics is not a new one, but it is creating a buzz among legal circles, said Eric Muller, a professor in the UNC School of Law.

"There is extreme scholarly debate on whether that is possible," he said. "There really is no judicial resolution of that question."

Congress has never made an official move to strip the judiciary of any power.

But Muller said the bill, which is being reviewed in the Senate judiciary committee, might draw its true worth from the discussion that follows.

"It may be that the value of the proposal is not that it would get passed but that it would be debated," he said.

"Legislators are trying to impress upon the judges how serious they are."

Muller also said the other pieces of legislation most likely were intended to influence the opinions of future judges.

"They're people," Muller said. "It would be human nature for people to be at least a little bit aware and potentially swayed by criticism."

Experts predict the case will take the traditional route of appeals and arrive on the desks of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, bypassing any legislation regarding jurisdiction.

"I expect the Supreme Court will hear this case in the next couple years," said Michael Gerhardt, a professor in the UNC School of Law.

"It is a possibility that the federal appeals court overturns the ruling, and it will end there."

Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu's concerns about the ruling extend past the pledge to other references to God in American life. Landrieu, a Democrat, introduced a resolution to protect the phrase "In God we trust" on coins and bills.

But experts say they do not expect the fate of those phrases to rest on the fate of the pledge.

"I don't think the two are related at all," Gerhardt said.

"They go back to different periods in our history. The pledge is different in that the pledge is something that is required to be said in schools."

And the question likely will linger on until the final word is given from the nation's highest court, he said.

"I do think that if the Supreme Court issues a ruling on the constitutionality of the pledge as it is written, (then) that will likely stand the test of time."

 

Contact the State & National Editor at stntdesk@unc.edu.