The phrase “under God” has been a part of the Pledge of 
Allegiance since 1954 and, in all likelihood, it will 
remain a part of the pledge. 

That, however, did not stop republicans in the U.S. House 
of Representatives from passing legislation that would 
prohibit all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, 
from hearing cases regarding the pledge or from banning the 
phrase “under God” from it.

Never mind that the bill flies in the face of the 
Constitution. The federal courts derive their powers from 
the Constitution, not from Congress. And never mind that 
the bill holds little chance of passage in the Senate this 
year.

What matters most to those who pushed it through in the 
House is that it drives a wedge between themselves and the 
democrats at a strategic time during the presidential 
campaign. 

Most Americans want the phrase to stay in the pledge, 
despite separation of church and state issues. Democrats, 
however, tend to be the biggest defenders of the 
constitutionally protected civil liberties as outlined in 
the First Amendment. They would loathe supporting such a 
bill, even with popular backing.

Thus it is with several other wedge issues that will likely 
come up again before the election. Gay marriages, abortion 
rights, flag burning, and stem cell research are a few of 
them.

Supporters say the legislation is needed to protect 
religion as a part of our national heritage. But these 
supporters don’t talk about the fact that the phrase “under 
God” did not appear in the traditional version of the 
pledge. It was placed their by Congress in 1954 as a knee-
jerk reaction to the “Godless communists.”

And what about the Constitution itself? God is not 
mentioned anywhere in that document, which makes it rare 
among official documents penned in the eighteenth century. 
Almost all other documents mention God, sometimes a lot. 
But the framers of the Constitution wanted it understood 
that the state was not run by the church.

If the bill finally does become law, it will be without 
precedent. No other law limits the scope of what the U.S. 
Supreme Court can do. And it is unlikely that the 
Constitution specifically gives Congress the right to make 
such limitations. 

In fact, passage of such a law may lead to a constitutional 
crisis. Would the Supreme Court be able to strike down a 
law that limits its own powers? If not, then the High 
Court’s practice of judicial review would be in jeopardy.

Rep. Judy Biggert, R-Ill., is afraid that if the bill 
becomes law it will be only the first step in limiting the 
powers of the federal judiciary. “The issue today may be 
the pledge, but what if the issue tomorrow is Second 
Amendment (gun) rights, civil rights, environmental 
protection, or a host of other issues that members may hold 
dear?” she asked.

Even if the legislation did eventually become law, judicial 
review would be a long way from dead. And it is unlikely 
that such a law will pass. But republicans in the House are 
using this issue to play dirty little tricks with the 
democrats just prior to the election. Hopefully, Americans 
will be able to see through the ploy.