```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 132 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 132

  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress is 
   inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first 
      amendment and should be overturned, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2003

 Mr. Ose (for himself, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Cunningham, 
Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Herger, Mr. Otter, Mr. Doolittle, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. 
 Porter, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Hensarling, Mrs. Bono, 
Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr. 
Isakson, Mr. Everett, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Mr. Frost, Mr. 
Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Renzi, 
Mr. Foley, Mr. Ney, Mr. Beauprez, Mrs. Capito, Mrs. Northup, Ms. Ginny 
   Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Chocola, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Burns, Mr. 
  Hayworth, Mr. Matheson, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. 
  Goode, and Mr. Nunes) submitted the following resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress is 
   inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first 
      amendment and should be overturned, and for other purposes.

Whereas on June 26, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Newdow v. 
        United States Congress (292 F.3d 597; 9th Cir. 2002) (Newdow I), held 
        that the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag as currently written to 
        include the phrase, ``one Nation, under God'', unconstitutionally 
        endorses religion, that such phrase was added to the pledge in 1954 only 
        to advance religion in violation of the establishment clause, and that 
        the recitation of the pledge in public schools at the start of every 
        school day coerces students who choose not to recite the pledge into 
        participating in a religious exercise in violation of the establishment 
        clause of the first amendment;
Whereas on February 28, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals amended its 
        ruling in this case, and held (in Newdow II) that a California public 
        school district's policy of opening each school day with the voluntary 
        recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag ``impermissibly 
        coerces a religious act'' on the part of those students who choose not 
        to recite the pledge and thus violates the establishment clause of the 
        first amendment;
Whereas the ninth circuit's ruling in Newdow II 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, that the voluntary recitation of the 
        Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag is consistent with the first amendment;
Whereas the phrase, ``one Nation, under God'', as included in the Pledge of 
        Allegiance to the Flag, reflects the notion that the Nation's founding 
        was largely motivated by and inspired by the Founding Fathers' religious 
        beliefs;
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, it is a patriotic exercise in which one expresses support for 
        the United States and pledges allegiance to the flag, the principles for 
        which the flag stands, and the 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 the effect of the ninth circuit's ruling in Newdow II will prohibit the 
        recitation of the pledge at every public school in 9 states, schooling 
        over 9.6 million students, and could lead to the prohibition of, or 
        severe restrictions on, other voluntary speech containing religious 
        references in these classrooms;
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 constitutionality of 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, has been placed into serious doubt by the ninth circuit's 
        decision in Newdow II;
Whereas the ninth circuit's interpretation of the first amendment in Newdow II 
        is clearly inconsistent with the Founders' vision of the establishment 
        clause and the free exercise clause of the first amendment, Supreme 
        Court precedent interpreting the first amendment, and any reasonable 
        interpretation of the first amendment;
Whereas this decision places the ninth circuit 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 that 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
Whereas the 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:
    Resolved, that it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) the phrase ``one Nation, under God,'' in the Pledge of 
        Allegiance to the Flag reflects that religious faith was 
        central to the Founding Fathers and thus to the founding of the 
        Nation;
            (2) the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, 
        including the phrase, ``one Nation, under God,'' is a patriotic 
        act, not an act or statement of religious faith or belief;
            (3) the phrase ``one Nation, under God'' should remain in 
        the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the practice of 
        voluntarily reciting the pledge in public school classrooms 
        should not only continue but should be encouraged by the 
        policies of Congress, the various States, municipalities, and 
        public school officials;
            (4) despite being the school district where the legal 
        challenge to the pledge originated, the Elk Grove Unified 
        School District in Elk Grove, California, should be recognized 
        and commended for their continued support of the Pledge of 
        Allegiance to the Flag;
            (5) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. 
        United States Congress has created a split among the circuit 
        courts, and is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's 
        interpretation of the first amendment, which indicates that the 
        voluntary recitation of the pledge and similar patriotic 
        expressions is consistent with the first amendment;
            (6) the Attorney General should appeal the ruling in Newdow 
        v. United States Congress, and the Supreme Court should review 
        this ruling in order to correct this constitutionally infirm 
        and historically incorrect holding; and
            (7) the President should nominate and the Senate should 
        confirm Federal circuit court judges who interpret the 
        Constitution consistent with the Constitution's text.
                                 <all>
```