In this editorial the Board of Opinion incorrectly implied that it is unconstitutional for Congress to exert any control over the cases that are heard by the Supreme Court. The editorial asked, “Did anybody tell Congress that it's unconstitutional to tell the Supreme Court what to rule on?”
It is not unconstitutional for Congress to decide what cases the Supreme Court will hear. Article 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states, “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” This section specifically gives Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts.
The Board of Opinion made the mistake of confusing opinion with fact. We believe that it is not in the best interests of the American people for Congress to prevent the Supreme Court from taking cases about the Pledge of Allegiance, though it may be constitutional to do so.
Corrected On: 8/1/2006 @ 2:56 pm
In a vote last Wednesday, legislation that would be a highly significant landmark in terms of congressional efforts to control the actions of federal courts if enacted, passed the House of Representatives.
Did anybody tell Congress that it's unconstitutional to tell the Supreme Court what they can and cannot rule on?
For anyone who is tired of hearing about a court ruling on the "one nation, under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, congratulations.
Referred to as the Pledge Bill, this vote taken by the House makes Congress one step closer to blocking higher courts from ruling on the issue of the Pledge of Allegiance altogether.
The issue that is at stake here, however, has nothing to do with the Pledge of Allegiance or whether or not students would have to recite "under God" when saying it.
The bill would bar federal courts from ruling on any constitutional issues stemming from the pledge, as well as any other issues that Congress feels like blocking the Supreme Court from ruling on.
State courts would be able to decide what legislation would be valid within their states.
This limiting of the Supreme Court from ruling on issues of its choosing is a slippery slope. It starts with a ruling on the pledge, but where does it end?
For every gay marriage or illegal immigration debate, where people fear that ruling in favor could lead to more radical changes, there is an executive decision to block review of phone tapping. And this blocking of the federal courts' power is much worse. The federal government's separation of powers allows for a system of checks and balances.
Barring the Supreme Court from ruling on certain issues is totally out of line.
Who is to say that within a year the Supreme Court would not rule on this piece of legislation and overturn it? The whole process, which if put into perspective with all of the other conflicts around the world and at home, seems pointless.
The shame of the matter is not religious preference or even separation of church and state.
The House is grossly over stepping its boundaries in its attempt to limit what issues the Supreme Court will rule on.
Send an 