Let Supreme Court rule

Everyday, more than 60 million teachers and schoolchildren across the nation pledge their loyalty to "one nation, under God," but for how much longer? And more importantly, who gets to decide? \nThe U.S. House of Representatives approved the Pledge Protection Act last week, which would strip all federal courts from hearing cases that challenge the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance.\nNow people are up in arms because, if it should be put into law, it will ultimately keep the Supreme Court from trying cases involving the constitutionality of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.\nThat would leave state courts to decide the fate of cases like the one involving, most recently, Michael Newdow, who, on behalf of his then 9-year-old daughter, sued California's Elk Grove United Schools District. \nNewdow argued to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the words "under God" were unconstitutional. Newdow, an atheist, said that by requiring his daughter to recite those words, the school forced her to take on a religious affiliation.\nThe circuit court decided the 2002 court case in Newdow's favor, saying that the requirement violated the Establishment Clause, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... ." The decision caused an uproar, and eventually Newdow's case ended up before the Supreme Court. The court eventually reversed the circuit court's decision, saying that Newdow did not have legal standing to sue on his daughter's behalf because he lacked legal custody of her.\nSome say it was the Supreme Court's way of ducking the issue. \nRegardless, the decision leaves us, once again, with the question: "Does 'under God' constitute a form of indoctrinated religion?" \nChief Justice William H. Rehnquist says the words are merely a matter of ceremony -- a patriotic exercise, not a religious one.\nMany would disagree. \nThe question of who is right is beside the point.\nQuite frankly, we're more concerned that those very arguments might never make it to the Supreme Court in any meaningful capacity.We're concerned about Congress causing a breakdown in the system of checks and balances.\nThe Newdow decision left the door open for another "under God" challenge. But if the Pledge Protection Act is passed, a case similar to Newdow's will never make it to the Supreme Court.\n"Under God" wasn't always a part of the Pledge. In fact, Congress added the words to the pledge back in 1954. And now, 50 years later, its own House of Representatives is making efforts to keep the phrase there. If that isn't the least bit questionable, we don't know what is.\nCongress isn't protecting the pledge, it's protecting itself. By keeping the Supreme Court from reviewing cases involving "under God," Congress is essentially saying "Hey, we're Congress, and we've decided you can't keep us in check."\nIt's a decision that hurts not only their credibility, but hinders the judicial process as well.\nTo take a page from FindLaw columnist Marci A. Hamilton, "The Supreme Court is properly the ultimate forum for questions concerning the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution."\nWe wholeheartedly agree.