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 Wis-
consin, 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 Okla-
homa, 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. WIL-
SON 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
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 Ap-
peals held that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitu-
tional 
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 con-
tent or protesting’’;
Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer or a reli-
gious practice, the recitation of the pledge is not a reli-
gious 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 Alle-
giance 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 cul-
ture. The Supreme Court has recognized that govern-
mental entities may, consistent with the First Amend-
ment, recognize the religious heritage of America;
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) (Bren-
nan, J., concurring), that ‘‘[t]he reference to divinity in
the revised pledge of allegiance . . . may merely recog-
nize 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 inher-
ently evil and is an attempt to remove such references
from the public arena: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep-
resentatives that—
(1) the Pledge of Allegiance, including the
phrase ‘‘One Nation, under God,’’ reflects the histor-
ical fact that a belief in God permeated the Found-
ing and development of our Nation;
(2) the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is inconsistent
with the U.S. Supreme Court’s First Amendment ju-
risprudence that the Pledge of Allegiance and simi-
lar expressions are not unconstitutional expressions
of religious belief;
(3) the phrase ‘‘One Nation, under God,’’
should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance; and
HRES 459 IH
(4) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should
agree to rehear this ruling en banc in order to re-
verse this constitutionally infirm and historically in-
correct ruling.
Æ