A resolution expressing Support for the Pledge of Allegiance.

(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

Expresses the Senate's disapproval of the decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in Newdow, et al. v. U.S. Congress, et al. (holding that the policy of daily teacher-led recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance by public school students violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution).

Authorizes and instructs the Senate Legal Counsel to continue to cooperate fully with the Attorney General in such case to vigorously defend the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance.

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 243 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]








109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 243

            Expressing Support for the Pledge of Allegiance.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 15, 2005

 Mr. Talent (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Santorum, Mr. McConnell, Mr. 
   Cornyn, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Lott, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Martinez, Mr. 
Bunning, Mr. Allen, Mr. Burns, Mr. Stevens, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Thune, Mr. 
  Ensign, and Mr. Kyl) submitted the following resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
            Expressing Support for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Whereas on June 26, 2002, a 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
        ruled in Newdow v. United States Congress that the words ``under God'' 
        in the Pledge of Allegiance violate the Establishment Clause of the 
        United States Constitution when recited voluntarily by students in 
        public schools;
Whereas on March 4, 2003, the United States Senate passed a resolution 
        disapproving of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Newdow by a vote of 94-
        0;
Whereas on June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court of the United States dismissed the 
        case, citing the plaintiff's lack of standing;
Whereas on January 3, 2005, the same plaintiff and 4 other parents and their 
        minor children filed a second suit in the Eastern District of California 
        challenging the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance;
Whereas on September 14, 2005, the Eastern District of California declined to 
        dismiss the new Newdow case, holding that the Ninth Circuit's earlier 
        ruling that the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance violate 
        the Establishment Clause was still binding precedent;
Whereas this country was founded on religious freedom by the Founding Fathers, 
        many of whom were deeply religious;
Whereas the First Amendment to the United States Constitution embodies 
        principles intended to guarantee freedom of religion both through the 
        free exercise thereof and by prohibiting the Government from 
        establishing a religion;
Whereas Congress, in 1954, added the words ``under God'' to the Pledge of 
        Allegiance;
Whereas Congress, in 1954, believed it was acting constitutionally when it 
        revised the Pledge of Allegiance;
Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance has for more than 50 years included references 
        to the United States flag, to our country having been established as a 
        union ``under God'', and to this country being dedicated to securing 
        ``liberty and justice for all'';
Whereas the 107th Congress overwhelmingly passed a resolution disapproving of 
        the panel decision of the Ninth Circuit in Newdow, and overwhelmingly 
        passed legislation recodifying Federal law that establishes the Pledge 
        of Allegiance in order to demonstrate Congress's opinion that 
        voluntarily reciting the Pledge in public schools is constitutional;
Whereas the Senate believes that the Pledge of Allegiance, as revised in 1954, 
        as recodified in 2002, and as recognized in a resolution in 2003, is a 
        fully constitutional expression of patriotism;
Whereas the National Motto, patriotic songs, United States legal tender, and 
        engravings on Federal buildings also refer to ``God''; and
Whereas in accordance with decisions of the United States Supreme Court, public 
        school students are already protected from being compelled to recite the 
        Pledge of Allegiance: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,
    Sec. 1. That the Senate strongly disapproves of the September 14, 
2005, decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern 
District of California in Newdow, et al. v. The Congress of the United 
States of America, et al.
    Sec. 2. That the Senate authorizes and instructs the Senate Legal 
Counsel to continue to cooperate fully with the Attorney General in 
this case in order to vigorously defend the constitutionality of the 
Pledge of Allegiance.
                                 <all>