Pledge Protection Act

Last updated

The Pledge Protection Act is proposed legislation in the United States Congress that seeks to deprive all Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance or its recitation. The bill was first introduced in response to a constitutional challenge to the Pledge by atheist Michael Newdow.

Contents

Newdow v. Elk Grove

On June 21, 2000, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled the Pledge of Allegiance constitutional in the case of Newdow v. Elk Grove Unified School District . Michael Newdow, a prominent atheist who filed suit on behalf of his daughter, promised to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The first decision of the Ninth Circuit was handed down on June 26, 2002, declaring that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Establishment Clause. The 'Pledge Protection Act' would be introduced into the House of Representatives for the first time on July 8, 2002, as part of the 107th Congress. Had the bill been successfully enacted into law, the decision of the Ninth Circuit would have stood, and the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge remained unconstitutional. The law would have proscribed further appeal to the Supreme Court, but under the Ex post facto clause of the Constitution and the doctrine of the separation of powers, the law could not vacate or modify any decisions already handed down.

An attempt to challenge Newdow's standing to sue on his daughter's behalf failed in the Ninth Circuit and would be the question that would result in the entire lawsuit being vacated by the United States Supreme Court on June 14, 2004. The bill would be reintroduced again in May 2003, but no action on it would take place until September 2004, which was after the Supreme Court's ruling vacating the lawsuit.

Legislative history

The bill was first introduced into the 107th Congress. Each time it has been introduced, it has always been by Rep. Todd Akin. Despite twice seeing success in the House of Representatives, it has never passed the Senate to be signed into law.

107th Congress

The 'Pledge Protection Act of 2002' was introduced into the 107th Congress as H.R. 5064 on July 8, 2002, by Rep. Todd Akin. [1] It was referred to the House Subcommittee on the Constitution where it died. The legislation would have added a restriction on the original jurisdiction of the United States district courts:

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.

108th Congress

The 'Pledge Protection Act of 2003' was introduced into the 108th Congress as H.R. 2028 on May 8, 2003. [2] The text of the legislation expanded upon that introduced in the 107th Congress to not only restrict the original jurisdiction of the district courts, but also strip appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court:

No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance, as defined in section 4 of title 4, or its recitation.

The bill also called for this limitation to not apply to the Superior Court or Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia.

Originally referred to the House Judiciary Committee, it passed the committee and was referred to the floor on September 21, 2004, by a vote of 17 to 10. The bill passed the House of Representatives on September 23, 2004, by a vote of 247 to 173. The bill was passed on to the Senate on September 27, 2004, where no action on the bill would be taken.

109th Congress

Going on the progress made by the bill in the 109th Congress, Rep. Akin reintroduced the bill as the 'Pledge Protection Act of 2005' on May 17, 2005, as H.R. 2389. [3] The text of the legislation was identical to that introduced in the 108th Congress with only minor formatting and organization changes.

The bill tied in committee by a 15 to 15 vote on June 28, 2006. In response Rep. Phil Gingrey introduced House Resolution 920 on July 18, 2006, to provide for the bill to be considered on the floor. The resolution was adopted the next day by a vote of 257 to 168. After floor debate, the bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 260 to 167 the same day.

In the Senate the bill was introduced by Sen. Jon Kyl as S. 1046 on May 17, 2005. [4] It was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where no action was taken.

110th Congress

The 'Pledge Protection Act of 2007' was introduced into the 110th Congress as H.R. 699 on January 29, 2007. [5] It was referred to the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, where no action was taken. The bill had the same text as that introduced in the 109th Congress.

After the 110th Congress

The bill has yet to be introduced again following the 110th Congress. Todd Akin did not seek re-election to the House in 2012, instead choosing to challenge Senator Claire McCaskill on her re-election bid, where he was unsuccessful. Jon Kyl retired at the end of his Senate term in 2012.

Criticisms

Marci Hamilton, writing on the legal site FindLaw, stated that the bill was an attempt to "deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction to check Congress's wayward ways -- in an arena where Congress was specifically believed by the Framers to be dangerous." [6]

The American Civil Liberties Union wrote a letter to Congress dated June 6, 2006, stating:

An effort to deny the federal courts, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over the very sort of claim they were established to hear–governmental conduct that violates a constitutional right–is an extreme attack on the role of federal courts in our system of checks and balances. It strikes at the very intent of the Founders. [7]

Americans United for Separation of Church and State stated on their web site that the bill "undercuts the separation of powers between the different branches of government and limits the legal options of religious minorities." [8]

Vikram Amar and Alan Brownstein, also writing for FindLaw, stated that under the bill "the time-honored principle that children may not be compelled to recite the Pledge, established over 50 years ago in West Virginia v. Barnette , would be unenforceable in federal court." [9] They are pointing out that if a State were to pass a law requiring the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, under the bill if it were passed into law, even challenging those laws in Federal courts would not be permissible. They further draw attention to the question of the constitutionality of the bill:

If a federal court thinks that it violates the Establishment Clause to include the words "one nation under god" in a publicly recited pledge, then that court would probably also think it violates the Establishment Clause for Congress to deprive federal courts of the power to hear cases precisely in order to permit the Pledge to be illegally recited.

Mark J. Pelavin, Associate Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, objected to court stripping in regards to the Pledge of Allegiance: [10]

Today's House adoption of the so-called 'Pledge Protection Act' is a shameful effort to strip our federal courts of their ability to uphold the rights of all Americans. By removing the jurisdiction of federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from cases involving the Pledge, this legislation sets a dangerous precedent: threatening religious liberty, compromising the vital system of checks and balances upon which our government was founded, and granting Congress the authority to strip the courts' jurisdiction on any issue it wishes. Today, the issue was the Pledge of Allegiance, but tomorrow it could be reproductive rights, civil rights, or any other fundamental concern.

See also

Related Research Articles

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was the United States Congress's first notable attempt to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In the 1997 landmark case Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck the act's anti-indecency provisions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pledge of Allegiance</span> Loyalty oath to the flag and republic of the U.S.

The Pledge of Allegiance is a patriotic recited verse that promises allegiance to the flag of the United States and the republic of the United States of America. The first version, with a text different from the one used at present, was written in 1885 by Captain George Thatcher Balch, a Union Army officer in the Civil War who later authored a book on how to teach patriotism to children in public schools. In 1892, Francis Bellamy revised Balch's verse as part of a magazine promotion surrounding the World's Columbian Exposition, which celebrated the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus' arrival in the Americas. Bellamy, the circulation manager for The Youth's Companion magazine, helped persuade then-president Benjamin Harrison to institute Columbus Day as a national holiday and lobbied Congress for a national school celebration of the day. The magazine sent leaflets containing part of Bellamy's Pledge of Allegiance to schools across the country and on October 21, 1892, over 10,000 children recited the verse together.

The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), also referred to by proponents as the Marriage Protection Amendment, was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would legally define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The FMA would also prevent judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex (gay) or other unmarried homosexual couples.

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004), was a case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The lawsuit, originally filed as Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al. in 2000, led to a 2002 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are an endorsement of religion and therefore violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The words had been added by a 1954 act of Congress that changed the phrase "one nation indivisible" into "one nation under God, indivisible". After an initial decision striking the congressionally added "under God", the superseding opinion on denial of rehearing en banc was more limited, holding that compelled recitation of the language by school teachers to students was invalid.

The Flag Desecration Amendment is a proposed addition to the Constitution of the United States that would allow the U.S. Congress to prohibit by statute and provide punishment for the physical "desecration" of the flag of the United States. The concept of flag desecration continues to provoke a heated debate over protecting a national symbol, preserving free speech, and upholding the liberty said to be represented by that national symbol. While the proposal has been passed by the two-thirds majority required in the House of Representatives several times, it has not passed the Senate by the same super-majority and has often not come to a vote in the Senate despite its introduction several times.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michael Newdow</span> American attorney and emergency medicine physician

Michael Arthur Newdow is an American attorney and emergency medicine physician. He is best known for his efforts to have recitations of the current version of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools in the United States declared unconstitutional because of its inclusion of the phrase "under God". He also filed and lost a lawsuit to stop the invocation prayer at President Bush's second inauguration and in 2009 he filed a lawsuit to prevent references to God and religion from being part of President Obama's inauguration.

In United States law, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, together with that Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, form the constitutional right of freedom of religion. The relevant constitutional text is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

The Palm Sunday Compromise, formally known as the Act for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo, is an Act of Congress passed on March 21, 2005, to allow the case of Terri Schiavo to be moved into a federal court. The name "Palm Sunday Compromise" was coined by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, referring to it having been passed on Palm Sunday.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marriage Protection Act</span>

The Marriage Protection Act of 2004 (MPA) was a bill introduced in the United States Congress in 2003 to amend the federal judicial code to deny federal courts jurisdiction to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or the MPA itself. Introduced as H.R. 3313 during the 108th Congress, the Republican-controlled House passed it in 2004, but it did not pass the Senate.

The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States has been criticized on several grounds. Its use in government funded schools has been the most controversial, as critics contend that a government-sanctioned endorsement of religion violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Arguments against the pledge include that the pledge itself is incompatible with democracy and freedom, that it is a form of nationalistic indoctrination, that pledges of allegiance are features of current and former totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany, and that the pledge was written to sell flags.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Citizenship Reform Act of 2005</span> Amendment bill

The proposed Citizenship Reform Act of 2005 was a U.S. congressional bill introduced in the 109th United States Congress by Re. Nathan Deal (R-GA). The legislation aimed to deny birthright citizenship to individuals born in the United States whose parents were not citizens or permanent residents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act</span> United States federal law

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) of 2006 is a United States federal law that prohibits any person from engaging in certain conduct "for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise." The statute covers any act that either "damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property" or "places a person in reasonable fear" of injury.

The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976 is a law of the United States codified in 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). It is often referred to as "Section 1988." It allows a Federal court to award reasonable attorney's fees to a prevailing party in certain civil rights cases. The Act was designed to create an enforcement mechanism for the nation's civil rights laws without creating an enforcement bureaucracy, because the prospect of being awarded attorneys' fees is thought to incentivize attorneys to bring civil rights cases on behalf of plaintiffs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stolen Valor Act of 2005</span> U.S. law regarding unauthorized wear, manufacture, or sale of any military decorations and medals

The Stolen Valor Act of 2005, signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 20, 2006, was a U.S. law that broadened the provisions of previous U.S. law addressing the unauthorized wear, manufacture, or sale of any military decorations and medals. The law made it a federal misdemeanor to falsely represent oneself as having received any U.S. military decoration or medal. If convicted, defendants might have been imprisoned for up to six months, unless the decoration lied about is the Medal of Honor, in which case imprisonment could have been up to one year. In United States v. Alvarez (2012), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech under the First Amendment–striking down the law in a 6 to 3 decision.

Alfred Theodore Goodwin was an American jurist who was a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and also a district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Goodwin wrote the majority opinion for the Ninth Circuit in the famous pledge of allegiance case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court as Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. Goodwin found that the recitation of the Pledge with the words "under God" violated the Establishment Clause, but the Supreme Court reversed his ruling. Goodwin famously wrote, "A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion."

The proposed Sanctity of Life Act was a bill first introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) on July 20, 1995, and cosponsored by Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY). It was reintroduced with similar text by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) in 2005 in the 109th United States Congress, 110th United States Congress, 111th United States Congress, and the 112th United States Congress. The repeatedly introduced bill sparked advocacy from anti-abortion activists and opposition from pro-choice activists. The bill has never become law.

Since 2005, federal legislation has been introduced in the 109th Congress, 110th Congress, 111th Congress and the 112th Congress to amend Title 28 United States Code section 1259 to allow members of the United States Armed Forces to appeal court-martial convictions when the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denies a petition for grant of review or extraordinary relief. In the 112th Congress the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2011, H.R. 3133 was introduced in the House of Representatives and the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2011, S. 1664 was introduced in the Senate. Both bills are currently pending.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">SPEECH Act</span> 2010 U.S. law limiting foreign defamation cases

The Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage (SPEECH) Act is a 2010 federal statutory law in the United States that makes foreign libel judgments unenforceable in U.S. courts, unless either the foreign legislation applied offers at least as much protection as the U.S. First Amendment, or the defendant would have been found liable even if the case had been heard under U.S. law.

Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and Section 4(b), which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subject to preclearance based on their histories of discrimination in voting.

The secular movement refers to a social and political trend in the United States, beginning in the early years of the 20th century, with the founding of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism in 1925 and the American Humanist Association in 1941, in which atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, freethinkers, and other nonreligious and nontheistic Americans have grown in both numbers and visibility. There has been a sharp increase in the number of Americans who identify as religiously unaffiliated, from under 10 percent in the 1990s to 20 percent in 2013. The trend is especially pronounced among young people, with about one in three Americans younger than 30 identifying as religiously unaffiliated, a figure that has nearly tripled since the 1990s.

References

  1. ↑ 107th Congress - H.R. 5064
  2. ↑ 108th Congress - H.R. 2028
  3. ↑ 109th Congress - H.R. 2389
  4. ↑ 109th Congress - S. 1046
  5. ↑ 110th Congress - H.R. 699
  6. ↑ Hamilton, Marci (2004-09-23). "The Pledge Protection Act: The Lunacy of Letting Only State Courts Interpret the First Amendment". FindLaw.
  7. ↑ American Civil Liberties Union (2006-06-06). "ACLU Letter to the House of Representatives Urging Opposition to H.R. 2389, "The Pledge Protection Act of 2005"". American Civil Liberties Union.
  8. ↑ "'Pledge Protection Act' Threatens Rights Of Religious Minorities, Says Americans United". Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 2006-06-06.
  9. ↑ Amar, Vikram & Brownstein, Alan (2004-10-01). "Conduct Unbefitting the Congress: The So-Called Pledge Protection Act Passed by the House of Representatives". FindLaw.
  10. ↑ "Court-stripping and Legislating Against the First Amendment (12 July 2006)". Jewsonfirst.org. Archived from the original on 29 September 2011. Retrieved 2012-01-16.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.