Mark Udall: “this bill seeks to prevent any federal court--including the Supreme Court--from considering ``any question pertaining to…”

“this bill seeks to prevent any federal court--including the Supreme Court--from considering ``any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance . . . or its recitation.'' As we all know, introduction of the bill was prompted by the 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in what is known as the ``Newdon'' case. That decision held that the 1954 legislation adding ``under God'' to the pledge and a California school district's policy of daily recitation of the pledge with those words were both unconstitutional. (That court later modified the decision to apply only to the school district's recitation policy.) The school district and the United States both appealed to the Supreme Court--and on June 14th the Supreme Court reversed the decision, on the grounds that the plaintiff did not have legal standing to challenge the school district's policy. But the Republican leadership of the House evidently is afraid that somebody else might bring a similar lawsuit--and that prospect that is so alarming to them that they have brought forward this bill, which would prevent any federal court from hearing a lawsuit like that. I cannot support such legislation. It may or may not be constitutional--on that I defer to those with more legal expertise than I can claim. But I think it clearly is not just unnecessary but misguided and destructive.”