Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 87 (Wednesday, June 26, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 87 (Wednesday, June 26, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6089-S6091]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE PLEDGE

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, a few minutes ago, late-
breaking news was called to our attention. As a matter of fact, it was
while we were debating the Scott Speicher amendment, which was adopted
unanimously on this Defense authorization bill. Sadly, I have confirmed
that that news is accurate. A Reuters statement says:

A Federal appeals court found the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance
unconstitutional on Wednesday, saying it was illegal to ask
U.S. schoolchildren to vow fealty to one Nation under God.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned a 1954
act of Congress that added ``under God'' to the pledge, saying the
words violated the basic constitutional tenet of separation of church
and state.
It is with a heavy heart that I would have to take the floor--I
imagine I am just the first of many--to call to the attention of the
Senate, and indeed to call to the attention of the courts, that I think
there is substantial legal justification. There is a huge difference
between separation of church and state--which we all support--and the
separation of the state and of God. There is a huge difference.
The opening ceremony of the U.S. Senate each morning that we go into
session is a very solemn occasion. Overlooking this Chamber are the
words inscribed in gold, above the middle entrance into this Chamber,
above the two stately columns--inscribed in gold: ``In God We Trust.''
The opening ceremony, for those who have not participated in it, is a
most solemn occasion about which the historian of this Chamber, one of
our own, the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia--who has
been in Congress, if not over a half a century, certainly close to it,
Senator Byrd--has taken it upon himself to educate the freshman
Senators as to the dignity, the decorum, and the solemnity of the
opening ceremony.
When the opening bells ring and those two doors to the left of the
rostrum open, in walks the Presiding Officer accompanied by the Senate
Chaplain or the especially designated Chaplain for the day.
As the Presiding Officer walks in and starts to mount the rostrum,
the Presiding Officer steps up three of the four steps but does not
ascend on the fourth step, which is the level of the Presiding
Officer's desk and chair. Rather, the Presiding Officer remains on the
third step as the Chaplain ascends to the higher level, the level of
the rostrum.
This is the symbolic act. It is a symbolic act of raising the dignity
of the position of the Chaplain of the Senate, or the designated
Chaplain of the Senate for the day, recognizing and elevating the
deity, or the representative of divine providence to that position. We
do that each day in the Senate.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I am happy to yield to the distinguished
Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. JOHNSON. I share the shock and dismay expressed by my colleague,
my friend from Florida, over the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court
relative to the Pledge of Allegiance in our schools.
Without having read the decision, other than what has been released
within the hour through the media, it would appear that ruling of the
three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit--the Senator will concur that
this is only one of our appellate circuits--applies only to the States
of that circuit.
Certainly, it would be my hope that this matter would be appealed to
the U.S. Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court would not accept
this decision and, hopefully, in my view, overrule the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.
Is that the progression of events that my friend and colleague from
Florida hopes will be the next step that this particular controversy
might take?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Indeed, under our constitutional system--that
is part of what I wanted to point out, and I pointed out to the Senate
earlier today--we have a mechanism of checks and balances. The check
and balance here is the right of appeal from this court of appeals in
San Francisco to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I have the confidence that the Supreme Court's nine Justices
representing the entire Nation would understand the difference between
separation of church and state as being the difference between the
separation of the state and God.
As I was saying, the dignity of this institution is started off each
day under the watchful words inscribed in gold above the center door,
``In God We Trust,'' with an opening ceremony in which the position of
the Chaplain is actually elevated above the Presiding Officer until the
Chaplain delivers the opening prayer which opens the business of the
Senate.
Furthermore, I point out to our colleagues that as part of our
constitutional heritage--including the Constitution--one of the most
important documents in our governmental archives is the Declaration of
Independence. I call to the attention of the Senate the words of the
second paragraph:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Then I point out that there are similar words at the end of the
Declaration:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm
reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually
pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred
Honor.

I have the confidence to know that when there is a judicial opinion
that I think so violates the national understanding and national sense
of the proper perspective of a state and divine providence as opposed
to the issue that we all support, the separation of church and state so
that anyone can worship as they wish if at all, then I think that
distinction needs to be clearly made as well as it needs to be reminded
of all of the historical significance of our reliance upon divine
providence that is a part of the very fabric of this Nation, of this
Government, and of the documents upon which this Government was
founded.

I see the great Senator from Connecticut standing and I am anxious to
hear what he has to say. Should all else fail, even in a judicial
interpretation, there is another check and balance given to us by this
document; that is, the will of this Nation can be expressed by the
amending or an addition to this document, the Constitution. We can
start right here in this legislative body by the process of adding to
the Constitution, amending the Constitution

[[Page S6090]]

by the legislative branch's initiative of proposing a constitutional
amendment.
I have great confidence in the system--that this judicial decision by
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is not going to stand.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The Senator from Connecticut is
recognized.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, I rise to join my friend and colleague from Florida,
Senator Nelson, in expressing dismay, outrage, and amazement at the
news today of the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court declaring the
recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional.
I say to my friends from Florida and friends in the Chamber, when my
staff members told me this, I, frankly, thought they were joking. This
is a decision that offends our national morality, that rejects the most
universally shared values of our country, that diminishes our unity,
and that attempts to undercut our strength at a time after September 11
when we need the strength, unity, and our shared belief in God which
has historically brought the American people together, and does so
today.
There may have been a more senseless, ridiculous decision issued by a
court somewhere at some time, but I have never heard of it. I find the
decision by this court hard to believe.
I remember a day, I say to my friends, a decade or so ago when the
Supreme Court issued a ruling saying that it was unconstitutional for a
clergymen--in that case, it was a Rabbi--to give an invocation at a
high school graduation in Rhode Island. I couldn't believe that
decision. In some sense this decision is its progeny. It offends the
very basis of our rights as Americans.
My friend from Florida read from the Declaration of Independence.
According to their decision of the Ninth Circuit Court, the reading of
the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional.
If that isn't turning logic and morality on its head, I do not know
what is, because the paragraph is the first statement by the Founders
of our independence and the first declaration of the basis for our
rights that have so distinguished our history in the 226 years since.
First paragraph:

When in the Course of human events . . . and to assume
among the powers of Earth, the separate and equal station to
which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them.

Right there is the basis of the assertion of independence--the rights
that we have under ``the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.''
And then the second paragraph, famous to every schoolchild and
American citizen:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So that the premise of the rights that have distinguished America for
the 226 years since, that were embraced in the Constitution as an
expression of the declaration, all come from God, not from the Framers
and the Founders, as gifted as they were, not from the philosophers of
the enlightenment who affected their judgments, but were the endowment
of our Creator.
And that judgment has framed our history in two ways. It has been the
basis of our rights because it is from our shared belief in God, and
the foundation place it has in our system of government, as stated
right here in the first statement of the first Americans, the
Declaration of Independence, that we are all children of the same God.
That means we all have the rights.
It also has meant that we feel a deep sense of unity with one
another. I remember, after the terrible events of September 11, how
struck I was by the classically American reaction that not only at that
moment when we were so shaken by the horror of inhumanity of what had
happened did we go to our houses of worship to ask for strength and
purpose and comfort, we went to each other's houses of worship--that is
the American way--and gained strength and purpose from it.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
We are privileged to serve on the Armed Services Committee.
When I first heard of this, I thought to myself about the hundreds
and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of men and women who have worn
the uniform of our country and have gone beyond our shores to fight for
freedom. All of them were proud to stand in their schoolhouses and on
their military bases, or whatever the case may be, and pledge
allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
Madam President, I join my friends in expressing our grave concern
over this opinion.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from Virginia.
I want to say a few words more.
One is that your statement reminds me, my dad served in World War II.
My dad passed away 18 years ago. One of the treasured possessions of
his that I have is a small Bible that he was given with a written
statement in it from President Roosevelt. All who served in defense of
our liberty in World War II got similar Bibles--and to carry it with
them as a source of strength.
It has been my honor, each time I have been sworn in as a Senator up
there, to put my hand on that Bible. It meant a lot to me personally.
But under the twisted logic of this decision, it was unconstitutional
for the U.S. military, the Pentagon, to give my dad, and the
generations of others since him, a Bible as a source of strength.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I have to say to my friend, my father
served in World War I as a doctor in the trenches. He was wounded and
highly decorated. And he carried, in his tunic, throughout every hour
of the day, his prayer book which his mother had given him. And he
noted in it every single battle and engagement he was in which he
tended to the sick and the wounded and those who died.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I appreciate my friend from Virginia sharing that
moving story.
I will conclude in a moment because I know----
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Of course I will yield to my friend from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I know the Senator from Connecticut had a distinguished
legal career prior to coming here. I believe the Senator was attorney
general of the State of Connecticut; is that right?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. That is correct.
Mr. REID. I practiced law many years prior to coming back here and
tried lots and lots of cases. We had a rule that when a judge ruled
contrary to the interests of your client, you were not to comment on
the judge.
I say to my friend, I am not constrained in this instance. I can say
anything I want about the judge who wrote that opinion. And I say to my
friend from Connecticut, that judge, who is no youngster, was
appointed. He graduated from law school in 1951 and was appointed by
President Nixon to be a member of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
I say to my friend, it is things like that that take away from what I
think is a great institution; that is, the people who serve in the bar
of the United States, lawyers.
This is just so meaningless, so senseless, so illogical. I cannot
imagine that a judge, who has graduated and been a lawyer for 50 years,
more than 50 years--does the Senator from Connecticut have any idea
how, logically, you could come up with an opinion such as this? I read
the highlights of the opinion. It is, for me, illogical, irrational.
Can the Senator figure any rationality to this opinion?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from Nevada.
In my opinion, having seen a precis of the decision, it offends all
logic. The facts of the circumstances are that students, by previous
court decisions, are allowed, if they are offended by a part of the
pledge that says we are ``one nation under God,'' to not say the pledge
or, in fact, to leave the room.
Secondly, this decision is the most extreme and ridiculous expression
of what I take to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the religion
clauses of the Constitution, which, to me, promised--if you will allow
me to put it this way--freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
They protect the American people against the establishment of an
official religion but have always, in the best of times, acknowledged
the reality that our very rights, our very

[[Page S6091]]

existence comes from an acknowledgment of the authority and goodness of
Almighty God, and that people of faith, throughout the 226 years since
then, in our history, are the ones who repeatedly have led movements
that have made the ideals of the Declaration and the Constitution
real--the abolitionists, the suffragettes, all those who worked,
beginning in the 19th century, and then in the 20th century, on social
welfare, child labor legislation, and, of course, the civil rights
movement of the 20th century.
So I do not see any logic. In fact, I think this decision offends
logic. It will outrage the public. And if there is anything positive
that comes out of it, it will unify this most religious and tolerant of
people.
We have found a way in this country, that is unique in world history,
to express our shared faith in God, and to do so in a way that has not
excluded anyone. I was privileged to benefit from that and feel that in
a most personal and validating and inspiring way in the election of
2000.
So I thank the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Virginia. I
thank the Senator from Florida for initiating this discussion. I agree
with him, this decision will be appealed. I hope and trust it will be
overturned. But if, may I say, God forbid, it is not overturned, then
we will join to amend the Constitution to make clear that in this one
Nation of ours--because we are one Nation under God--we are one Nation
because of our faith in God, that the American people, children,
forever forward will be able to stand and recite the pledge.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. If my two friends would allow me to propound a unanimous
consent request, we waited for 2 days to do this. As soon as I complete
this, the Senator from Connecticut will regain the floor.

____________________