[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 459 Introduced in House (IH)]







107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 459

  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Newdow v. 
     U.S. Congress was erroneously decided, and for other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 26, 2002

Mr. Sensenbrenner (for himself, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Hastert, 
 Mr. Armey, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. 
  Watts of Oklahoma, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Pence, Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mr. 
 Bachus, Mr. Jeff Miller of Florida, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hyde, 
   Mr. Kerns, Mr. Hostettler, Mr. Shows, Mr. Schrock, Mr. Weldon of 
Florida, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Johnson of Illinois, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Ross, 
Mr. Graves, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Gallegly, Mrs. Bono, Mr. Upton, Ms. Dunn of 
   Washington, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Lucas of Kentucky, Mr. Osborne, Mr. 
Shadegg, Mr. Riley, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Cox, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Green of 
Wisconsin, Mr. Issa, Mr. Forbes, Ms. Hart, Mr. Keller, Mr. Tom Davis of 
Virginia, Mr. Costello, Mr. Baker, Mr. Tiberi, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Taylor 
 of North Carolina, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Cooksey, 
  Mr. Oxley, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Calvert, Mr. 
 Hayes, Mr. Ganske, Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma, Mr. Latham, Mr. DeMint, Mr. 
    Tiahrt, Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Linder, Mr. Hastings of 
  Washington, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Goss, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. 
  Platts, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Flake, Mr. Istook, Mr. 
 Bryant, Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico, Mr. Young of Florida, Mr. Lewis of 
   California, Mr. Rehberg, Mr. Israel, Mr. McCrery, Mr. Peterson of 
Minnesota, and Mr. Sherwood) submitted the following resolution; which 
             was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Newdow v. 
     U.S. Congress was erroneously decided, and for other purposes.

Whereas on June 26, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the 
        Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, 
        stating that it ``impermissibly takes a position with respect to the 
        purely religious question of the existence and identity of God'', and 
        places children in the ``untenable position of choosing between 
        participating in an exercise with religious content or protesting'';
Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer or a religious practice, the 
        recitation of the pledge is not a religious exercise;
Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance is the verbal expression of support for the 
        United States of America, and its effect is to instill support for the 
        United States of America;
Whereas the United States Congress recognizes the right of those who do not 
        share the beliefs expressed in the Pledge to refrain from its 
        recitation;
Whereas this ruling is contrary to the vast weight of Supreme Court authority 
        recognizing that the mere mention of God in a public setting is not 
        contrary to any reasonable reading of the First Amendment. The Pledge of 
        Allegiance is not a religious service or a prayer, but it is a statement 
        of historical beliefs. The Pledge of Allegiance is a recognition of the 
        fact that many people believe in God and the value that our culture has 
        traditionally placed on the role of religion in our founding and our 
        culture. The Supreme Court has recognized that governmental entities 
        may, consistent with the First Amendment, recognize the religious 
        heritage of America;
Whereas the notion that a belief in God permeated the Founding of our Nation was 
        well recognized by Justice Brennan, who wrote in School District of 
        Abington Township v. Schempp. 374 U.S. 203, 304 (1963) (Brennan, J., 
        concurring), that ``[t]he reference to divinity in the revised pledge of 
        allegiance . . . may merely recognize the historical fact that our 
        Nation was believed to have been founded `under God'. Thus reciting the 
        pledge may be no more of a religious exercise than the reading aloud of 
        Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which contains an allusion to the same 
        historical fact.''; and
Whereas this ruling treats any religious reference as inherently evil and is an 
        attempt to remove such references from the public arena: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) the Pledge of Allegiance, including the phrase ``One 
        Nation, under God,'' reflects the historical fact that a belief 
        in God permeated the Founding and development of our Nation;
            (2) the Ninth Circuit's ruling is inconsistent with the 
        U.S. Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence that the 
        Pledge of Allegiance and similar expressions are not 
        unconstitutional expressions of religious belief;
            (3) the phrase ``One Nation, under God,'' should remain in 
        the Pledge of Allegiance; and
            (4) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should agree to 
        rehear this ruling en banc in order to reverse this 
        constitutionally infirm and historically incorrect ruling.
                                 <all>