IV

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 459

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Newdow v. U.S.

Congress was erroneously decided, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 26, 2002

Mr. SENSENBRENNER (for himself, Mr. PICKERING, Mr. POMBO, Mr.

HASTERT, Mr. ARMEY, Mr. DELAY, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. GEKAS, Mr.

SMITH of Texas, Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma, Mr. CANNON, Mr. PENCE,

Mr. BARR of Georgia, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida, Mr.

VITTER, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HYDE, Mr. KERNS, Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mr.

SHOWS, Mr. SCHROCK, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. FOSSELLA, Mr.

JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. ROSS, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. PITTS,

Mr. GALLEGLY, Mrs. BONO, Mr. UPTON, Ms. DUNN of Washington, Mrs.

BIGGERT, Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky, Mr. OSBORNE, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr.

RILEY, Mr. HILLEARY, Mr. COX, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. ISSA, Mr. FORBES, Ms. HART, Mr. KELLER, Mr. TOM DAVIS

of Virginia, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. BAKER, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. REYNOLDS,

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. WICKER, Mr.

WALSH, Mr. COOKSEY, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr.

RAMSTAD, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. HAYES, Mr. GANSKE, Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. SESSIONS, Mrs.

MYRICK, Mr. LINDER, Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, Mr. DREIER, Mr.

GOSS, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. PLATTS, Ms. PRYCE of

Ohio, Mr. HULSHOF, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. ISTOOK, Mr. BRYANT, Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico, Mr. YOUNG of Florida, Mr. LEWIS of California, Mr.

REHBERG, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. MCCRERY, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, and

Mr. SHERWOOD) submitted the following resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
2

HRES 459 IH

Newdow v. U.S. Congress was erroneously decided, and

for other purposes.

Whereas on June 26, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, stating that it

‘‘impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely

religious question of the existence and identity of God’’,

and places children in the ‘‘untenable position of choosing

between participating in an exercise with religious content or protesting’’;

Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer or a religious practice, the recitation of the pledge is not a religious exercise;

Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance is the verbal expression of

support for the United States of America, and its effect

is to instill support for the United States of America;

Whereas the United States Congress recognizes the right of

those who do not share the beliefs expressed in the

Pledge to refrain from its recitation;

Whereas this ruling is contrary to the vast weight of Supreme

Court authority recognizing that the mere mention of

God in a public setting is not contrary to any reasonable

reading of the First Amendment. The Pledge of Allegiance is not a religious service or a prayer, but it is a

statement of historical beliefs. The Pledge of Allegiance

is a recognition of the fact that many people believe in

God and the value that our culture has traditionally

placed on the role of religion in our founding and our culture. The Supreme Court has recognized that governmental entities may, consistent with the First Amendment, recognize the religious heritage of America;
3

HRES 459 IH

Whereas the notion that a belief in God permeated the

Founding of our Nation was well recognized by Justice

Brennan, who wrote in School District of Abington

Township v. Schempp. 374 U.S. 203, 304 (1963) (Brennan, J., concurring), that ‘‘[t]he reference to divinity in

the revised pledge of allegiance . . . may merely recognize the historical fact that our Nation was believed to

have been founded ‘under God’. Thus reciting the pledge

may be no more of a religious exercise than the reading

aloud of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, which contains an

allusion to the same historical fact.’’; and

Whereas this ruling treats any religious reference as inherently evil and is an attempt to remove such references

from the public arena: Now, therefore, be it

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

3 (1) the Pledge of Allegiance, including the

4 phrase ‘‘One Nation, under God,’’ reflects the histor5 ical fact that a belief in God permeated the Found6 ing and development of our Nation;

7 (2) the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is inconsistent

8 with the U.S. Supreme Court’s First Amendment ju9 risprudence that the Pledge of Allegiance and simi10 lar expressions are not unconstitutional expressions

11 of religious belief;

12 (3) the phrase ‘‘One Nation, under God,’’

13 should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance; and
4

HRES 459 IH

1 (4) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should

2 agree to rehear this ruling en banc in order to re3 verse this constitutionally infirm and historically in4 correct ruling.

Æ