[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 7204]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 SENSE OF HOUSE THAT NEWDOW V. UNITED STATES CONGRESS IS INCONSISTENT 
  WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND 
                         SHOULD BE OVER-TURNED

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 19, 2003

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution 
expressing the sense of Congress that the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeal's decision in Newdow v. the United States Congress is 
inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First 
Amendment and should be overturned.
  The Court ruled on a case in which children were required to recite 
the pledge. Just as we should not bar anyone from reciting the Pledge 
of Allegiance, we should not force anyone to recite words they do not 
believe.
  As I have stated before, I believe the Ninth Circuit was right in 
ruling that the reference to ``God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance is 
unconstitutional. It is a religious term that does not respect the 
diversity of faiths and opinion in America and the separation of Church 
and State as our Constitution requires.
  This House has now been given three separate opportunities to vote on 
almost identical resolutions denouncing the Ninth Circuit for its 
rulings on this issue. Right or wrong, Congress has made its voice 
heard. But, it appears that many of my colleagues are not content to 
let the judicial branch do its job. They want to intervene, exerting as 
much political pressure as necessary to sway the Supreme Court to side 
with their far-right Christian ideology.
  These same colleagues seem to forget that religious liberty, 
religious tolerance and freedom of thought and expression were foremost 
principles in the minds of the Constitution's framers. This resolution 
before us today states that ``religious belief was central to our 
nation's founding''--completely ignoring these other integral ideals. 
As written, the resolution flatly mischaracterizes the very foundation 
of our democracy.
  I urge my colleagues to end this effort to derail the Supreme Court's 
impartial deliberation on this issue. I urge my colleagues to vote no 
on the resolution.

                          ____________________