Expressing Sense of Congress That United States Supreme Court Should Speedily Find Use of Pledge of Allegiance in Schools to Be Consistent...

EXPRESSING SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT SHOULD SPEEDILY FIND USE OF PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN SCHOOLS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH CONSTITUTION -- (House of Representatives - September 28, 2005)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 245) expressing the sense of Congress that the United States Supreme Court should speedily find the use of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools to be consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, this is not a de minimis issue, and those who would say that a constitutional question is ever inappropriate I am afraid do not understand the importance of millions of American children not knowing, depending upon where they live, how they should recite the Pledge of Allegiance. More importantly, it is not about religion. It is about from where our power comes.

Our Founding Fathers rightfully said that our power came from the laws of nature and of nature's God in the Declaration of Independence. I do not know what Thomas Jefferson exactly meant; I was not there. What I do know is that our Founding Fathers believed that the power of the Almighty came to the American people and they loaned to government the right to govern them, rather than the sovereign that they had served in England, the sovereign who said that the powers of God came to him or her and that they then doled it out to the people they chose to.

That difference is profound. It is the difference in American government that we are not the governed of our government but, in fact, the owners of our government.

More importantly, I want the Members on both sides of the aisle to understand that this is not about raising or lowering the importance, it is not about deciding what is appropriate in the Pledge of Allegiance. What it is about is having the indecision between the Ninth and the Fourth Circuit appropriately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Once decided by the Supreme Court, it would then be up to the people of the United States to decide if they wanted to change the Constitution, because the Supreme Court is in fact the final decision point.

It is inappropriate, it is always inappropriate for the Supreme Court to allow an important issue to remain undecided and different in different parts of the United States. Therefore, appropriately, my bill asks the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the House and the Senate to take up this important issue, an appropriate issue, and to decide it. We do not determine how it is to be decided by the vote. Those who vote for this are simply asking the Supreme Court to decide an important issue to end the undecided issue between the Ninth and the Fourth and, for that matter, all the other circuits.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, in closing, in the past, over 300, sometimes over 400, Members of Congress have affirmed the Pledge as it is. I do not think this is a question about whether or not God is appropriate to be used at times. I think that has been decided within this body. Certainly ``In God We Trust'' above the Speaker's head says a great deal about the role of God in our deliberation.

This resolution is about asking, albeit with a bent in favor of past votes, asking the Supreme Court to decide an issue. Ultimately, when we ask the Supreme Court to decide an issue, we are not deciding it. We are not binding them to some decision. Just the opposite. This is a free and independent judiciary that will decide the issue as it sees fit. But it is appropriate both for us to ask them to do it and, when appropriate as an amicus, enter into the debate at the Supreme Court. I expect we will do that if and when the Supreme Court takes this issue up.

Mr. Speaker, I move strongly that the Members support the opportunity and the insistence to the extent of our authority that the Supreme Court take this unreconciled difference between two circuits up and decide one way or the other, one time, for the youth of America.

* [Begin Insert]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 245. It is time to settle the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. America's circuit courts are currently split on the issue, and I introduced this resolution to encourage the Supreme Court to resolve this conflict on the side of patriotism.

We come to this juncture because of an attempt by a very few to scour the public space of religious symbols and expression. They have targeted federal, state and local governments in a determined effort to erase every single reference to the existence of a higher power from public life. While they claim to be fighting the establishment of religion, what they are really doing is eliminating the freedom of religious expression. They have forgotten that the inclusion of ``under God'' in the Pledge is no more egregious than Thomas Jefferson including the phrase ``Laws of Nature and of Nature's God'' in the Declaration of Independence.

In 2002, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in classrooms is unconstitutional. Far be it for we in Congress to criticize the wisdom of the 9th Circuit. I would rather compliment the 4th Circuit's ruling last month that the Pledge is constitutional. The 4th Circuit noted that the primary reason for the Establishment Clause within the First Amendment was to combat the practice of European nations compelling individuals to support government favored churches. The 4th Circuit stated that the inclusion of the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance does not pose a threat to freedom of religion.

We are left with two divergent interpretations of the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. Two weeks ago, a U.S. District Court within the 9th Circuit judge stated that he was bound by precedent of the 9th Circuit and held that the Pledge is unconstitutional in another school district.

The Supreme Court must decide the issue to ensure that our children have the right to express their patriotism through recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The Court had the opportunity to resolve this issue last year but failed to do so. It is time for the Supreme Court to step in and support the Pledge.

I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H. Con. Res. 245.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov