Washington ? The House, in an emotionally and politically charged debate six weeks before the election, voted Thursday to protect the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance from further court challenges.

The legislation, promoted by GOP conservatives, 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.

Democrats said majority Republicans were debasing the Constitution to force a vote that could hurt Democrats at the ballot box.

Supporters insisted that Congress had always had authority to limit federal court jurisdiction, and that the legislation was needed to protect an affirmation of religion that was part of the national heritage.

The bill, which the House approved, 247-173, has little chance of advancing in the Senate this year, but it laid down another marker for politicians seeking to differentiate themselves from their election opponents on volatile social issues of the day. Other “wedge” issues that have come up or may arise before the election include gay marriage and flag-burning.

In June, the Supreme Court dismissed, on a technicality, a 2002 federal court decision that the religious reference made the pledge unconstitutional.

Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who wrote the amendment on legislation before the House on Thursday, said the outcome could be different if the high court ruled on the substance, or “if we allow activist judges to start creating law and say that it is wrong to somehow allow schoolchildren to say ‘under God’ in the pledge.”

In such a scenario, Akin said, the courts will have “emasculated the very heart of what America has always been about.”

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said, “We’re playing with fire here, we are playing with the national unity of this country” by undoing 200 years of federal judicial review and letting each state make its own interpretation of constitutional law.

The vote paralleled another in July, when the House voted to prevent federal courts from ordering states to recognize same-sex unions sanctioned in other states.

“Far from violating the ‘separation of powers,’ legislation that leaves state courts with jurisdiction to decide certain classes of cases would be an exercise of one of the very ‘checks and balances’ provided for in the Constitution,” said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the Judiciary Committee.