[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 116 (Thursday, September 15, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10130-S10131]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 SENATE RESOLUTION 243--EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  Mr. TALENT (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Santorum, Mr. McConnell, Mr.

[[Page S10131]]

Cornyn, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Lott, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Martinez, Mr. 
Bunning, Mr. Allen, Mr. Burns, Mr. Stevens, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Thune, Mr. 
Ensign, and Mr. Kyl) submitted the following resolution; which was 
considered and agreed to:

                              S. Res. 243

       Whereas on June 26, 2002, a 3-judge panel of the Ninth 
     Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Newdow v. United States 
     Congress that the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of 
     Allegiance violate the Establishment Clause of the United 
     States Constitution when recited voluntarily by students in 
     public schools;
       Whereas on March 4, 2003, the United States Senate passed a 
     resolution disapproving of the Ninth Circuit's decision in 
     Newdow by a vote of 94-0;
       Whereas on June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court of the United 
     States dismissed the case, citing the plaintiff's lack of 
     standing;
       Whereas on January 3, 2005, the same plaintiff and 4 other 
     parents and their minor children filed a second suit in the 
     Eastern District of California challenging the words ``under 
     God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance;
       Whereas on September 14, 2005, the Eastern District of 
     California declined to dismiss the new Newdow case, holding 
     that the Ninth Circuit's earlier ruling that the words 
     ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance violate the 
     Establishment Clause was still binding precedent;
       Whereas this country was founded on religious freedom by 
     the Founding Fathers, many of whom were deeply religious;
       Whereas the First Amendment to the United States 
     Constitution embodies principles intended to guarantee 
     freedom of religion both through the free exercise thereof 
     and by prohibiting the Government from establishing a 
     religion;
       Whereas Congress, in 1954, added the words ``under God'' to 
     the Pledge of Allegiance;
       Whereas Congress, in 1954, believed it was acting 
     constitutionally when it revised the Pledge of Allegiance;
       Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance has for more than 50 years 
     included references to the United States flag, to our country 
     having been established as a union ``under God'', and to this 
     country being dedicated to securing ``liberty and justice for 
     all'';
       Whereas the 107th Congress overwhelmingly passed a 
     resolution disapproving of the panel decision of the Ninth 
     Circuit in Newdow, and overwhelmingly passed legislation 
     recodifying Federal law that establishes the Pledge of 
     Allegiance in order to demonstrate Congress's opinion that 
     voluntarily reciting the Pledge in public schools is 
     constitutional;
       Whereas the Senate believes that the Pledge of Allegiance, 
     as revised in 1954, as recodified in 2002, and as recognized 
     in a resolution in 2003, is a fully constitutional expression 
     of patriotism;
       Whereas the National Motto, patriotic songs, United States 
     legal tender, and engravings on Federal buildings also refer 
     to ``God''; and
       Whereas in accordance with decisions of the United States 
     Supreme Court, public school students are already protected 
     from being compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved,
       Sec. 1. That the Senate strongly disapproves of the 
     September 14, 2005, decision by the United States District 
     Court for the Eastern District of California in Newdow, et 
     al. v. The Congress of the United States of America, et al.
       Sec. 2. That the Senate authorizes and instructs the Senate 
     Legal Counsel to continue to cooperate fully with the 
     Attorney General in this case in order to vigorously defend 
     the Constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance.

                          ____________________