IV 
House Calendar No. 13
108TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
H. RES. 132
[Report No. 108–41] 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress is incon-
sistent 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 
MARCH 18, 2003
Additional sponsors: Mr. POMBO, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. HASTINGS 
of Washington, Mr. CANNON, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. FORBES, Mr. 
JANKLOW, Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, 
Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. BAKER, Mr. 
YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. BUYER, 
Mr. COMBEST, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. HOBSON, 
and Mr. REYNOLDS 
MARCH 18, 2003
Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
•HRES 132 RH 
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 Su-
preme 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 Ap-
peals, 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 en-
dorses religion, that such phrase was added to the pledge 
in 1954 only to advance religion in violation of the estab-
lishment 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 partici-
pating in a religious exercise in violation of the establish-
ment 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 pol-
icy of opening each school day with the voluntary recita-
tion 
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 amend-
ment; 
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 explic-
•HRES 132 RH 
itly stated, that the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of 
Allegiance to the Flag is consistent with the first amend-
ment; 
Whereas the phrase, ‘‘one Nation, under God’’, as included 
in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, reflects the no-
tion 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 re-
frain 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 dis-
tricts to adopt a preference against speech containing re-
ligious references; 
Whereas the constitutionality of the voluntary recitation by 
public school students of numerous historical and found-
ing documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, 
the Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address, has been
•HRES 132 RH 
placed into serious doubt by the ninth circuit’s decision 
in Newdow II; 
Whereas the ninth circuit’s interpretation of the first amend-
ment 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 rea-
sonable interpretation of the first amendment; 
Whereas this decision places the ninth circuit in direct con-
flict 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 dis-
trict’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 amend-
ment; 
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 Con-
gress 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 Al-
legiance to the Flag in the 107th Congress by adopting 
Senate Resolution 292 on June 26, 2002, by a vote of 
99–0: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that it is the sense of the House of Rep-
resentatives that—
•HRES 132 RH 
(1) the phrase ‘‘one Nation, under God,’’ in the 
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag reflects that reli-
gious 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 pub-
lic 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, Cali-
fornia, 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
•HRES 132 RH 
amendment, which indicates that the voluntary reci-
tation of the pledge and similar patriotic expressions 
is consistent with the first amendment; 
(6) the Attorney General should appeal the rul-
ing 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 Sen-
ate should confirm Federal circuit court judges who 
interpret the Constitution consistent with the Con-
stitution’s text.
House Calendar No. 13
108TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
H. RES. 132
[Report No. 108–41] 
RESOLUTION 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representa-
tives that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rul-
ing in Newdow v. United States Congress is in-
consistent with the Supreme Court’s interpreta-
tion of the first amendment and should be over-
turned, and for other purposes. 
MARCH 18, 2003
Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
printed