THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume VII, Issue # 68, April 3, 2005
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
THE FEDERAL COURTS & THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
By Dr. Ron Paul
UNRESTRAINED GOVERNMENT BY AN OUT-OF-CONTROL FEDERAL JUDICIARY: A JUDICIARY THAT IS DESTROYING THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AMERICA'S CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL REPUBLIC, OUR SYSTEM OF LIMITED, DIVIDED &
BALANCED GOVERNMENTAL POWER, & THE POLITICAL AUTONOMY OF THE MEMBER-STATES OF THE AMERICAN FEDERAL
UNION -- THE NEED FOR CONGRESS TO EXERCISE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO LIMIT THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION
OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, AS WELL AS THE JURISDICTION OF THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS
FULL STORY:
As a member of the United States House of Representatives, I am pleased to support, and co-sponsor, the proposed Pledge
Protection Act (HR 2028), which would restrict federal court jurisdiction over the question of whether the phrase “under God”
should be included in the Pledge of Allegiance. Local public schools should determine for themselves whether or not students
should say “under God” in the Pledge. The case finding it is a violation of the First Amendment to include the words “under God”
in the Pledge is yet another example of federal judges abusing and unconstutionally expanding their power by usurping state and
local governments’ authority over matters such as education. Congress has not only the constitutional authority to rein in the
federal courts and restrict their jurisdiction, but also the constitutional duty do so in order to preserve the autonomy (home rule)
of the states under the United States Constitution and to guarantee and protect the states' republican forms of government.
Since unrestrained government by the federal judiciary undermines the states’ autonomy and republican governments, as well as
the American system of separation of powers and checks and balances, Congress has a constitutional and therefore
legally-binding duty to rein in and restrict rogue federal judges. I urge Congress exercise its authority to protect the states from an
out-of-control federal judiciary.
Many of my colleagues, in voting on issues regarding federalism and states' rights, base their votes on whether or not they agree
with the particular state policy at issue. However, under America's federal system, as prescribed by the United States
Constitution and as guaranteed and protected by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution [1], the member-states of the American
federal union have the constitutional authority to legislate in ways that most members of Congress, and even the majority of the
citizens of other states, disapprove. Consistently upholding state autonomy does not mean approving of all actions taken by state
governments; it simply means acknowledging that the constitutional limits on the power of the national government (including the
federal courts) require Congress to respect the wishes of the states, even when the states act unwisely. I would like to remind my
colleagues that an unwise state law, by definition, only affects the people of one state. Therefore, it does far less damage than a
national law that affects all Americans.
While I will support this bill, even if the language removing the United States Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over cases regarding the
Pledge of Allegiance is eliminated, I am troubled that some of my colleagues question whether Congress has the authority to limit
Supreme Court jurisdiction in this case. Both the clear language of the United States Constitution [2] and a long line of legal
precedents make it clear that Congress has the authority to limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. The Framers of the Constitution
intended for Congress to use the power to limit federal court jurisdiction as a check, or restraint, on all federal judges -- including
Supreme Court justices -- who, after all, have lifetime tenure and are thus unaccountable to the people.
Ironically, the author of the Pledge of Allegiance might disagree with our commitment to preserving the prerogatives of state and
local governments. Francis Bellamy, the author of the Pledge, was a self-described Socialist who wished to replace the Founders’
constitutional federal republic with a highly centralized unitary state under which all governmental authority resided in the national
government. Bellamy wrote the Pledge as part of his efforts to ensue that children put their allegiance to the central government
before their allegiance to their families, local communities, state governments, and even their Creator! In fact, the atheist Bellamy did
not include the words “under God” in his original version of the Pledge. That phrase was added to the Pledge in the 1950s.
Today, most Americans who support the Pledge reject Bellamy’s vision and view the Pledge as a reaffirmation of their loyalty to the
Framers’ vision of a constitutional federal republic, a system of representative government with limited, divided and balanced
powers, a system based on recognition of the fact that the fundamental rights and liberties of the individual person come from the
Creator, not from the sovereign state, which has the moral and legal obligation to protect the God-given, natural rights of the
individual member of society. In order to help preserve the Framers’ system of checks and balances and a national government of
limited powers, I am pleased to support HR 2028, the Pledge Protection Act. Again, I urge my colleagues to do the same.
NOTES:
[1] U.S. Constitution, Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it the the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
[2] U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2: "In all Cases affecting
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be
a Party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other [federal]
Cases ... the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and
Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations, as Congress shall make."
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Legal Issues, Lawyers, & America's Judiciary
U.S. Constitutional Law & Political Philosophy
The foregoing statement by Congressman Ron Paul was presented, on September 25, 2004, as a speech delivered from the floor of
the U.S. House of Representatives.
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives, elected from and representing the Fourteenth
Congressional District of Texas. Congressman Paul is considered to be one of America's leading spokesmen for constitutional
government, the rule of law, liberty under law, the private enterprise system,, free market economics, sound monetary policy, and
fiscal restraint on the part of the U.S. national government.
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume VII, 2005
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues