33rd / 424th District Courts

The House passed legislation that would prevent federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from hearing cases challenging the words "under God," a part of the pledge for the past 50 years. See House Blocks Court on Pledge Case Rulings By JIM ABRAMS Associated Press Writer (Source: http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1153/9-24-2004/20040924000017_29.html).

What's wrong with this picture? While the legislative branch may certainly pass legislation as a response to court rulings it doesn't like (subject to further judicial scrutiny, of course), it cannot prospectively curtail the courts from even hearing a challenge. It appears the proscription is based on a fear that an activist federal judge will declare the "under God" phrase unconstitutional. I believe the phrase should stay and decry judicial activism -- but this legislation is embarassing in its breach of fundamental constitutional principles. I think.

However, the article cited above discusses at length a rationale under which the scope of the jurisdiction of the courts is subject to Congressional regulation. After all, it was the Supreme Court itself that ruled that it was the arbiter of what the Constitution says. Remember Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137?