[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 12614]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           REGISTER-HERALD EDITORIAL ON PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. NICK J. RAHALL II

                            of west virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 16, 2004

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, my hometown newspaper, the Register-Herald, 
of Beckley, WV, hit the nail on the head today with its editorial, 
``Pledge: Issue still unresolved,'' as the Supreme Court sidestepped a 
chance to help cement the moral foundation of our Nation. It used a 
technicality to overturn a decision by a lower court that had declared 
the use of the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance 
unconstitutional.
  For well over 200 years the moral fiber of this Nation has been built 
not upon the law of man, but rather upon the law of God. The Supreme 
Court held in its hands the people's eloquent expression of what many 
of my fellow West Virginians already know, that only under the watchful 
eye of God can all we hope for be accomplished and all we dream of come 
true. And, though the dismissal was welcomed, the Court's reason for 
the dismissal wasted an opportunity to forever strengthen our national 
character.
  The Register-Herald best summed up the missed opportunity by our 
Supreme Court with the editorial that follows:

                                 Pledge


                         Issue still unresolved

       The words ``under God'' can stay in the Pledge of 
     Allegiance, says the Supreme Court, whose Monday ruling 
     actually resolves next to nothing.
       Instead of taking on the substance of the issue, the court 
     ruled on whether the man who brought the case in the first 
     place had proper standing. He doesn't, the court said.
       Three justices did indicate that they see no violation of 
     the Constitution in the pledge's language. Good for them. The 
     First Amendment aims to keep Congress from establishing a 
     state religion, which would require a great deal more effort 
     from Congress than inserting a couple of words in the pledge 
     a half-century ago. Children cannot be compelled to recite 
     the pledge or even listen to it if they don't wish to.
       The Supreme Court will sooner or later have to delete the 
     phrase or else rule in its defense, an action requiring only 
     this: respect for constitutional language and a grain of 
     common sense.

                          ____________________