Republican lawmakers hold rally to defend pledge

ST. CHARLES, Mo. -- Two Missouri Republican lawmakers held a rally Wednesday to encourage support for legislation aimed at keeping the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

U.S. Rep. Todd Akin and U.S. Sen. Jim Talent spoke to several dozen people -- many dressed in red, white and blue -- and said they believe God grants rights to humans, that the pledge helps to unify Americans and that banning the pledge in schools amounted to censorship.

Akin is the driving force behind a bill that would prevent federal district and appellate courts from reviewing a constitutional challenge of the pledge. He has 218 co-sponsors in the House. Talent said he and Sen. Orrin Hatch filed a similar bill in the Senate last week.

Last year, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals banned the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. It found that the reference to "under God," was a violation of the separation of church and state.

The ban is on hold while the school district appeals, and the Bush administration appealed to the Supreme Court in April on the matter.

The case was brought by Michael Newdow, a California man who describes himself as an atheist and did not want his 8-year-old daughter to be forced to recite the pledge at school.

But in St. Charles, a community about 25 miles outside of St. Louis, another parent said he thinks belief in God is one of the most important things children can be taught.

Dennis Wagner said he was firmly behind the lawmakers' attempts to protect the pledge in its current form. "It's what we stand for, one nation under God," he said. "They do more to keep God out of school than drugs out of school," he said. "I think it's really important that we have our morals and values where they are supposed to be."

His son Dylan Wagner, 12, who was dressed in his Boy Scout uniform, led the assembled group in the Pledge of Allegiance, along with a group of military veterans.

Akin and Talent noted that bills have won approval in the past that restrict judges' authority to review certain issues.

But some legal scholars have raised concerns that the proposed pledge legislation could go further by restricting court actions on a constitutional question.

Saint Louis University law professor Roger Goldman said, "Can you pick out parts of constitutional issues and limit the courts' ability to rule on them?"

He said, "Of course you get a lot of political points by saying we want God in the Pledge of Allegiance." But, he said, the bill, if passed, leaves other questions unresolved.

He said it could leave the issue in the hand of state-level courts, which could lead to several different interpretations of whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance is allowed. Or, he said, it could freeze the 9th Circuit's decision as they've already ruled. "It leaves in place the particular decision that caused the anger in the first place."

But the politicians said they thought the bill could do much to keep the reference to God in the pledge. They said they think it'll send a strong message that only the Supreme Court should be able to rule on the question.

"No one has to say 'Under God,"' Akin noted. But he said he thinks it's another matter entirely when judges rule that people absolutely cannot say it. "That's legislating from the bench. That's liberal judges for you."

------

On the Net:

Information on the bill, H.R.2028, can be found at: http://thomas.loc.gov