Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 116 (Thursday, September 15, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 116 (Thursday, September 15, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10147-S10148]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SUPPORT FOR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 243, which was submitted
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 243) Expressing Support for the
Pledge of Allegiance.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about yesterday's
court decision which ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is
unconstitutional. I am concerned, but certainly not surprised, with
this decision. And I am very concerned with the decision's
implications.
It is time for us to take a stand against activist judges who seek to
circumvent the will of the American people and who issue judgments
flying in the face of decency and common sense. With all that is going
on in our world today, to attack the Pledge of Allegiance because it
contains a reference to God is ludicrous.
Most Americans were outraged when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. Last year,
the Supreme Court dismissed the case. The Supreme Court said that the
plaintiff in the Pledge of Allegiance case did not have standing. The
Court found that, because he was not the custodial parent, he could not
object to his daughter's reciting the pledge of allegiance in school.
When that decision came down, many people, myself included, knew that
it would only be a matter of time before the plaintiff, Michael Newdow,
would be back. We were right. Yesterday, the Court, looking to the
previous ninth circuit decision, ruled that the use of the simple
phrase ``under God'' was a religious act. The Court found that a school
policy involving the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance had a coercive
religious effect.
I strongly disagree that the pledge is coercive. I also strongly
disagree with the court's decision. The Pledge of Allegiance, in
addition to containing a statement of common values and patriotism,
recognizes historic facts behind our Nation's founding. There are so
many references in America to God, our Creator. Those references can be
seen in our currency, on public buildings, even in the Declaration of
Independence which is displayed a few blocks from the Capitol in the
National Archives.
This recent decision further emphasizes our Nation's need for judges
who are respectful of people of faith and for judges who understand
that America's continued reference, and reverence, toward the Creator
are very important to our common culture.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the resolution
expressing the strong disapproval of the Senate to the September 14,
2005, decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California in the case of Newdow, et al. v. The Congress of the United
States of America, et.al.
This decision is a prime example of why we need to put judges on the
bench who will strictly interpret the law and not legislate from the
bench. Judges are not politicians. They are on the bench to hear the
cases in front of them, not to pursue their own personal political
agendas. We need more judges that will decide each case based on the
facts and the law, not legislate from the bench.
Like most Americans, those of us who are not serving on the Judiciary
Committee have watched intently as President Bush's nominee for Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court has stood up to the over 21 hours of
questioning. Judge John Roberts has been asked nearly 500 questions,
and his responses have added to the more than 76,000 pages of documents
concerning his Federal Government service. The hearings themselves have
proved to be an incredible civics lesson for the American public, and
to some extent the Senate, on the role of judges.
I have been very impressed with Judge Roberts, both when we met and
in his considerable response during these hearings. He is a modest and
humble man who I believe will be a credit to our judicial system. As he
stated in his opening remarks, ``[i]t is that rule of law that protects
the rights and liberties of all Americans. It is the envy of the world.
Because without the rule of law, any rights are meaningless.'' Judge
Roberts believes in judicial restraint, adherence to the rule of law,
as well as a posture of modesty and humility in a court.
I believe that Judge Roberts is the kind of judge that America
needs--a fair, independent and unbiased judge committed to equal
justice under the law. If confirmed, I am convinced that Judge Roberts
will strictly interpret the law and not legislate from the bench. As he
said yesterday, he does not come to the bench or to a case with an
agenda or a platform. In fact, he reminded my colleagues that he was
not

[[Page S10148]]

a politician, and he is not going to advocate positions on issues to
win votes.
Returning to the case at hand, I call on my colleagues to support
this resolution. The Pledge of Allegiance is a unifying force in this
Nation. It draws all of us, regardless of race, religion, gender, or
national origin, together in support of the common good. At a time when
we should be uniting to support our troops in Iraq and our neighbors in
the Gulf States affected by Hurricane Katrina, it is a shame that an
activist court is seeking to divide based on the principle of ``I'' or
``me first,'' instead of pursuing the selfless principle of the common
good. Just last Congress this body came together to support the current
Pledge of Allegiance on a 94-0 vote. I hope that we will have the same
bipartisan support again for this important issue, and I urge support
of this resolution.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to,
the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 243) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

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 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. 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.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this resolution that we passed is a Senate
resolution expressing support for the Pledge of Allegiance. Because of
the significance of this matter, I would like to read some paragraphs
in the resolution and then the closing resolve section:

Mr. President, the ``whereas'' clauses continue.

Resolved, 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.

This is an important Senate resolution, as is the one that follows
this, S. Res. 244, which we will address shortly. Every morning in the
Senate, we open with that pledge to the flag of the United States of
America. It is an issue on which the Senate now speaks loudly in
disagreement with the most recent findings.
The second resolution related to this issue is S. Res. 244.

____________________