This is the heart of this entire debate. The Founders wrote into the Constitution protections of inalienable rights that they believed to be God given (ergo the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge) and thus are not to be messed with by anybody, not even the Supreme Court. The protections they wrote into the Constitution ensure that even a majority cannot override those inalienable rights. If they attempt to do so by amendment or any other means, the Constitution will fail and so will the Republic it designs and defends.
The Founders were also first and foremost concerned that the tyranny of government never be manifested in this country and that is what the First Amendment as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights is all about. Where no individual inalienable right is involved, it is the will of the people, expressed through their elected representatives, that shall prevail.
That is why I have said all along that the phrase 'under God' neither establishes a religion nor does it violate anybody's inalienable rights in any way, and thus it is entirely consitutional and is present because a majority of people want it to be there. That majority represents the will of the people that is also constitutionally protected.
At such time as a majority of people object to its being there, it will be gone. That's the way democractic principles structured within a Republic should work and in fact do work.
On the next issue like this, those who object to the Pledge may be on the side of the majority; and I guarantee you they'll have no problem with the majority will prevailing then.