IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 453 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to a 

court decision relating to the Pledge of Allegiance. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 

Mr. MCCOTTER (for himself, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. 

FORD, Mrs. CAPITO, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. 

BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. FERGUSON, and Mr. SHUSTER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with 

respect to a court decision relating to the Pledge of 

Allegiance. 

Whereas on September 14, 2005, United States District 

Judge Lawrence Karlton erroneously ruled the Pledge of 

Allegiance’s reference to ‘‘one Nation, under God’’ violates school children’s right to be ‘‘free from a coercive 

requirement to affirm God’’; 

Whereas on September 14, 2005, United States District 

Judge Lawrence Karlton cited the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals decision in Newdow v. United States Congress 

(292 F.3d 597; 9th Cir. 2002) and erroneously ruled the 

Pledge of Allegiance’s phrase, ‘‘one Nation, under God’’, 
2 

•HRES 453 IH 

violates school children’s right to be ‘‘free from a coercive 

requirement to affirm God’’; claimed this phrase was 

added to the pledge in 1954 solely to advance religion in 

violation of the establishment clause; and averred the 

public schools’ daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance 

coerces reluctant students into participating in a religious 

exercise in violation of the establishment clause of the 

first amendment; 

Whereas however, the Supreme Court dismissed the case of 

Newdow v. the United States Congress, finding the plaintiff lacked standing; 

Whereas the decision by Judge Karlton wrongfully endangers 

Americans’ constitutionally protected, First Amendment 

right to the free exercise of religion by illogically deeming 

the Pledge of Allegiance’s phrase, ‘‘one Nation, under 

God,’’ as the establishment of a state-approved religious 

sect and, further, contradicts the clear implication of the 

holdings in various Supreme Court cases and the spirit 

of numerous other Supreme Court cases in which members of the Court have explicitly stated the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag is consistent with the First Amendment; 

Whereas Judge Karlton’s ruling ignores the fact the Pledge 

of Allegiance reflects our nation’s founding was largely 

inspired by the Founders’ historically expressed and documented religious beliefs, which is the precise reason why 

Americans do not derive their inalienable rights from 

government, but rather government derives from the inalienable rights of Americans; 

Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag is not a prayer 

or statement of religious faith, and its recitation is not 

a religious exercise, but rather, is a patriotic exercise 
3 

•HRES 453 IH 

where a citizen expresses support for the United States 

and pledges allegiance to the flag, the principles for 

which the flag stands, and our nation; 

Whereas the House of Representatives recognizes the right of 

those who do not share the beliefs expressed in the pledge 

or who do not wish to pledge allegiance to the flag to refrain from its recitation; 

Whereas rather than promoting neutrality on the question of 

religious belief, this decision requires public school districts to adopt a preference against speech containing religious references; 

Whereas the voluntary recitation by public school students of 

numerous historical and founding documents, such as the 

Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the 

Gettysburg Address, are now endangered by the absurd 

rationale of Judge Karlton’s judicial fiat; 

Whereas this decision is in direct conflict with the Seventh 

Circuit Court of Appeals which, in Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District (980 F.2d 437; 7th Cir. 

1992), held a school district’s policy allowing for the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag 

in public schools does not violate the establishment clause 

of the first amendment; 

Whereas Congress has consistently supported the Pledge of 

Allegiance to the Flag by starting each session with its 

recitation; 

Whereas the House of Representatives reaffirmed support for 

the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag in the 107th Congress by adopting House Resolution 459 on June 26, 

2002, by a vote of 416–3 and in the 108th Congress by 
4 

•HRES 453 IH 

adopting House Resolution 132 on March 20, 2003, by 

a vote of 400–7; and 

Whereas the United States Senate reaffirmed support for the 

Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag in the 107th Congress 

by adopting Senate Resolution 292 on June 26, 2002, by 

a vote of 99–0 and in the 108th Congress by adopting 

Senate Resolution 71 on March 4, 2003, by a vote of 94– 

0: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) the phrase ‘‘one Nation, under God’’ in the 

4 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag reflects historically 

5 factual religious faith central to the lives of the 

6 Founders and the founding of our Nation; 

7 (2) the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to 

8 the Flag, including the phrase, ‘‘one Nation, under 

9 God’’ is a patriotic act, not an act or statement of 

10 religious faith or belief; 

11 (3) the phrase ‘‘one Nation, under God’’ should 

12 remain in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and 

13 the practice of voluntarily reciting the pledge in pub14 lic school classrooms should not only continue but 

15 should be encouraged by the policies of Congress, 

16 the various States, municipalities, and public school 

17 officials; 

18 (4) because the recitation of the Pledge of Alle19 giance preserves and promotes our Republic’s vital 
5 

•HRES 453 IH 

1 virtue of citizenship amongst our children, the school 

2 district where the legal challenge to the pledge origi3 nated, the Elk Grove Unified School District in Elk 

4 Grove, California, is recognized and commended for 

5 its continued support of the Pledge of Allegiance to 

6 the Flag; 

7 (5) the ruling by United States District Judge 

8 Lawrence Karlton is inconsistent with the Supreme 

9 Court’s interpretation of the first amendment, which 

10 indicates the voluntary recitation of the pledge and 

11 similar patriotic expressions is consistent with the 

12 first amendment; and 

13 (6) the Attorney General should appeal the rul14 ing in Newdow v. United States Congress, and the 

15 Supreme Court should review this ruling in order to 

16 correct this constitutionally infirm and historically 

17 incorrect ruling which infringes upon and endangers 

18 the inalienable rights of all Americans. 

Æ