WASHINGTON – New York congressional Democrats are denouncing Republican-backed legislation that would prohibit the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from considering constitutional cases that involve the Pledge of Allegiance.

Supporters of the “Pledge Protection Act”, which will be debated today, call it the “permanent solution” to questions such as whether public school children can be required to recite the pledge, which includes the words “under God.”

But opponents such as Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat of New York, said the legislation is a “despicable” attempt to undermine the judiciary by lawmakers who are “playing with fire.”

A fellow New York Democrat, Rep. Anthony Weiner, called the proposed legislation “a little bit crazy.” He told The New York Sun he planned to offer an amendment that would preserve at least the ability of the Supreme Court to hear the cases.

“You have to let there be some arbiter of someone’s right to free speech,” Mr. Weiner said. He said he is “in favor” of the pledge and added that a court would be “stupid” to strike it down.

Rep. Mel Watt, a Democrat of North Carolina, has put forward such an amendment. Another amendment that would allow courts to consider the constitutionality of forced recitation of the pledge was put forward by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat of Houston.

Rep. Todd Akin, a Republican of Missouri and the sponsor of the “Pledge Protection Act,” said the bill protects the free speech of Americans from activist judges.

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a Republican of Wisconsin, said the legislation would “place final authority over a state’s pledge policy in the hands of the states themselves.”

The bill comes as Congress is looking at various ways to limit the power of the courts, and in a campaign year in which liberal judges have been criticized for decisions endorsing gay marriage.

Mr. Nadler said the pattern of “court-stripping” threatens to undermine the constitutional order.

“As despicable as I find the current court on so many issues, I understand that we cannot maintain our system of government, and especially our Bill of Rights, if the independent judiciary cannot enforce those rights, even if the majority doesn’t like it,” he said when the committee voted along partisan lines to approve the bill.

The lone Republican in the city’s delegation, Rep. Vito Fossella of Staten Island, is one of more than 220 co-sponsors of the legislation. A spokesman said he had no comment yesterday other than he would be voting in favor of the bill.

The legislation was introduced in 2003, following a federal appeals court ruling that said public school children could not be forced to recite the pledge due to the religious nature of the words “under God.” The Supreme Court later overturned the decision on the grounds that California atheist, Michael Newdow, did not have standing to bring the case on behalf of his daughter. But the justices did not resolve the underlying constitutional issue.

“It would be prudent for Congress to enact this provision that would prevent future lawsuits in lower federal courts,” Mr. Akin said in a statement.

He said the bill would protect “an important part of America’s culture and history” from the judiciary.

“The idea that there is a God, and that God grants rights to humankind, and that the essential purpose of government is to protect these rights is a fundamental principle that is also central to our nation’s Declaration of Independence,” he said.

Senator Talent of Missouri has filed a companion bill in the Senate.

But some civil liberties groups said the bill could lead to an infringement of rights.

“This measure yanks from the federal courts the ability to ensure fundamental constitutional rights for all Americans,” said the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Barry Lynn.

Mr. Lynn said the bill would particularly hurt religious minorities who object to reciting the pledge “on grounds of conscience,” and is a “shameless” effort to “curry favor of the religious right” in an election year.