Mark Udall: “at best this bill is a mistake. At worst, it is a cynical political stunt. Either way, it should not pass. It seeks to…”

“at best this bill is a mistake. At worst, it is a cynical political stunt. Either way, it should not pass. It seeks to end the ability of Federal courts--including the Supreme Court--``to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance'' as the pledge is now worded. It responds to a 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that both the 1954 law that added the words ``under God'' to the pledge and a local school district's policy of daily recitation of the pledge as so worded were unconstitutional. (The ruling later was modified to apply only to the school district's recitation policy.) The Supreme Court reversed that decision because the plaintiff did not have legal standing to challenge the school district's policy. But the Republican leadership evidently finds the possibility of a similar lawsuit so alarming--or maybe they think it presents such a political opportunity--that they back this bill to keep any Federal court from hearing a lawsuit like that. I cannot support such legislation. It mayor may not be constitutional--on that I defer to those with more legal expertise than I can claim. But I have no doubt it is not only unnecessary but even misguided and destructive. I have no objection to the current wording of the Pledge of Allegiance.…”