[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 132 Reported in House (RH)]
House Calendar No. 13
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 132
[Report No. 108-41]
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress is
inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first
amendment and should be overturned, and for other purposes.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 6, 2003
Mr. Ose (for himself, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Cunningham,
Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Herger, Mr. Otter, Mr. Doolittle, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr.
Porter, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Hensarling, Mrs. Bono,
Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr.
Isakson, Mr. Everett, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Mr. Frost, Mr.
Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Renzi,
Mr. Foley, Mr. Ney, Mr. Beauprez, Mrs. Capito, Mrs. Northup, Ms. Ginny
Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Chocola, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Burns, Mr.
Hayworth, Mr. Matheson, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Gerlach, Mr.
Goode, and Mr. Nunes) submitted the following resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
March 18, 2003
Additional sponsors: Mr. Pombo, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Shays, Mr. Hastings of
Washington, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Janklow, Mr.
Carson of Oklahoma, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, Mr. Hostettler, Mr.
McHugh, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Baker, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Davis of
Tennessee, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Combest, Mr. Rogers of Michigan,
Mr. Calvert, Mr. Hobson, and Mr. Reynolds
March 18, 2003
Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress is
inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first
amendment and should be overturned, and for other purposes.
Whereas on June 26, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Newdow v.
United States Congress (292 F.3d 597; 9th Cir. 2002) (Newdow I), held
that the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag as currently written to
include the phrase, ``one Nation, under God'', unconstitutionally
endorses religion, that such phrase was added to the pledge in 1954 only
to advance religion in violation of the establishment clause, and that
the recitation of the pledge in public schools at the start of every
school day coerces students who choose not to recite the pledge into
participating in a religious exercise in violation of the establishment
clause of the first amendment;
Whereas on February 28, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals amended its
ruling in this case, and held (in Newdow II) that a California public
school district's policy of opening each school day with the voluntary
recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag ``impermissibly
coerces a religious act'' on the part of those students who choose not
to recite the pledge and thus violates the establishment clause of the
first amendment;
Whereas the ninth circuit's ruling in Newdow II contradicts the clear
implication of the holdings in various Supreme Court cases, and the
spirit of numerous other Supreme Court cases in which members of the
Court have explicitly stated, that the voluntary recitation of the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag is consistent with the first amendment;
Whereas the phrase, ``one Nation, under God'', as included in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag, reflects the notion that the Nation's founding
was largely motivated by and inspired by the Founding Fathers' religious
beliefs;
Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag is not a prayer or statement of
religious faith, and its recitation is not a religious exercise, but
rather, it is a patriotic exercise in which one expresses support for
the United States and pledges allegiance to the flag, the principles for
which the flag stands, and the Nation;
Whereas the House of Representatives recognizes the right of those who do not
share the beliefs expressed in the pledge or who do not wish to pledge
allegiance to the flag to refrain from its recitation;
Whereas the effect of the ninth circuit's ruling in Newdow II will prohibit the
recitation of the pledge at every public school in 9 states, schooling
over 9.6 million students, and could lead to the prohibition of, or
severe restrictions on, other voluntary speech containing religious
references in these classrooms;
Whereas rather than promoting neutrality on the question of religious belief,
this decision requires public school districts to adopt a preference
against speech containing religious references;
Whereas the constitutionality of the voluntary recitation by public school
students of numerous historical and founding documents, such as the
Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Gettysburg
Address, has been placed into serious doubt by the ninth circuit's
decision in Newdow II;
Whereas the ninth circuit's interpretation of the first amendment in Newdow II
is clearly inconsistent with the Founders' vision of the establishment
clause and the free exercise clause of the first amendment, Supreme
Court precedent interpreting the first amendment, and any reasonable
interpretation of the first amendment;
Whereas this decision places the ninth circuit in direct conflict with the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which, in Sherman v. Community
Consolidated School District (980 F.2d 437; 7th Cir. 1992), held that a
school district's policy allowing for the voluntary recitation of the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag in public schools does not violate the
establishment clause of the first amendment;
Whereas Congress has consistently supported the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
by starting each session with its recitation;
Whereas the House of Representatives reaffirmed support for the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag in the 107th Congress by adopting House
Resolution 459 on June 26, 2002, by a vote of 416-3; and
Whereas the Senate reaffirmed support for the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
in the 107th Congress by adopting Senate Resolution 292 on June 26,
2002, by a vote of 99-0: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that it is the sense of the House of Representatives
that--
(1) the phrase ``one Nation, under God,'' in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag reflects that religious faith was
central to the Founding Fathers and thus to the founding of the
Nation;
(2) the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag,
including the phrase, ``one Nation, under God,'' is a patriotic
act, not an act or statement of religious faith or belief;
(3) the phrase ``one Nation, under God'' should remain in
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the practice of
voluntarily reciting the pledge in public school classrooms
should not only continue but should be encouraged by the
policies of Congress, the various States, municipalities, and
public school officials;
(4) despite being the school district where the legal
challenge to the pledge originated, the Elk Grove Unified
School District in Elk Grove, California, should be recognized
and commended for their continued support of the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag;
(5) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v.
United States Congress has created a split among the circuit
courts, and is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's
interpretation of the first amendment, which indicates that the
voluntary recitation of the pledge and similar patriotic
expressions is consistent with the first amendment;
(6) the Attorney General should appeal the ruling in Newdow
v. United States Congress, and the Supreme Court should review
this ruling in order to correct this constitutionally infirm
and historically incorrect holding; and
(7) the President should nominate and the Senate should
confirm Federal circuit court judges who interpret the
Constitution consistent with the Constitution's text.
House Calendar No. 13
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 132
[Report No. 108-41]
_______________________________________________________________________
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress is
inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first
amendment and should be overturned, and for other purposes.
_______________________________________________________________________
March 18, 2003
Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed