Pledge Protection Act of 2004
PLEDGE PROTECTION ACT OF 2004 -- (House of Representatives - September 23, 2004)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 781 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2028.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I voted against H.R. 2028, the Pledge Protection Act.
The phrase "under God" belongs in our Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and the words "In God We Trust" belong on our currency. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made a serious error in Newdow v. U.S. Congress when they declared our Pledge unconstitutional.
When the phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, I was in elementary school and remember feeling the phrase belonged there. It appropriately reflects the fact that a belief in God motivated the founding and development of our great Nation.
The Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights ....." Our forefathers understood it was not they, but He, who had bestowed upon all of us those most cherished rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness upon which our model of government is based.
At Gettysburg, President Abraham Lincoln acknowledged we were a Nation under God and, during his Second Inaugural Address, he mentioned our Creator 13 times.
Those historic speeches, the Pledge of Allegiance, our currency and the Declaration of Independence are not prayers or parts of a religious service. They are a statement of our commitment as citizens to our great Nation and the role God plays in it.
Our founders envisioned a government that would allow, not discourage or punish, the free exercise of religion and we are living their dream.
I voted against the Pledge Protection Act because I have faith in our Constitution and do not believe we should preclude judges from hearing issues of social relevance, simply because we may disagree with their ultimate decisions.
The tactic of restricting courts' jurisdiction is spiraling out of control. In July, I voted against a bill that would block the courts from hearing Constitutional challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act and again today we considered legislation to tie the courts' hands. What's next?
While the courts may, from time to time, produce a ruling we question, the principle of judicial review is essential to maintaining the integrity of our system of checks and balances and I fear the path we appear to be on. We are a Nation under God, and in Him we trust.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT