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.108th Congress (2003-2004)
ResolutionHide Overview icon-hide
|Sponsor:||Rep. Ose, Doug [R-CA-3] (Introduced 03/06/2003)|
|Committees:||House - Judiciary|
|Committee Reports:||H. Rept. 108-41|
|Latest Action:||03/20/2003 Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. (All Actions)|
|Roll Call Votes:||There has been 1 roll call vote|
This bill has the status Passed House
Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:
- Passed House
Summary: H.Res.132 — 108th Congress (2003-2004)All Bill Information (Except Text)
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced in the House on March 6, 2003. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Passed House without amendment (03/20/2003)
Expresses 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 to the founding of the Nation; (2) reciting the Pledge, including that phrase, is a patriotic act, not an act or statement of religious faith or belief; (3) that phrase should remain in the Pledge and the practice of voluntarily reciting the pledge in public school classrooms should be encouraged by the policies of Congress, the various States, municipalities, and public school officials; and (4) the Elk Grove Unified School District in Elk Grove, California, should be commended for its continued support of the Pledge.
Declares that: (1) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress (which held that the inclusion of that phrase in the Pledge unconstitutionally endorses religion) is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment; (2) the Attorney General should appeal, and the Supreme Court should review, that ruling; and (3) the President should nominate, and the Senate should confirm, Federal circuit court judges who interpret the Constitution consistent with the Constitution's text.