[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.



                          ____________________