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. SHU-
STER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Com-
mittee 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’’ vio-
lates 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’’,
•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 plain-
tiff 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 mem-
bers of the Court have explicitly stated the voluntary reci-
tation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag is con-
sistent 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 doc-
umented religious beliefs, which is the precise reason why 
Americans do not derive their inalienable rights from 
government, but rather government derives from the in-
alienable 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
•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 re-
frain from its recitation; 
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 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. Commu-
nity Consolidated School District (980 F.2d 437; 7th Cir. 
1992), held a school district’s policy allowing for the vol-
untary 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 Con-
gress by adopting House Resolution 459 on June 26, 
2002, by a vote of 416–3 and in the 108th Congress by
•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 
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep-
resentatives that— 
(1) the phrase ‘‘one Nation, under God’’ in the 
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag reflects historically 
factual religious faith central to the lives of the 
Founders and the founding of our 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) because the recitation of the Pledge of Alle-
giance preserves and promotes our Republic’s vital
•HRES 453 IH 
virtue of citizenship amongst our children, the school 
district where the legal challenge to the pledge origi-
nated, the Elk Grove Unified School District in Elk 
Grove, California, is recognized and commended for 
its continued support of the Pledge of Allegiance to 
the Flag; 
(5) the ruling by United States District Judge 
Lawrence Karlton is inconsistent with the Supreme 
Court’s interpretation of the first amendment, which 
indicates the voluntary recitation of the pledge and 
similar patriotic expressions is consistent with the 
first amendment; and 
(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 ruling which infringes upon and endangers 
the inalienable rights of all Americans. 
Æ