Congressman Hinojosa Regarding HR 2799
Congressman Hinojosa Regarding HR 2799
September 30, 2004 -
Congressman Hinojosa issued the following Letter to the Editor regarding HR 2799:
Let me begin by stating that I believe in our National Pledge of Allegiance. It is recited every morning before Congress begins its work and children sayit everyday at school. I believe that the words "under God" should remain in the pledge. In 2002, the 9th Circuit ruled in Newdow vs. US Congress, that the words "under God" violated the establishment clause of the Constitution and should be removed. I voted for legislation, H.Res 132, and HR 2799 to overturn this wrong decision. I was very pleased when the US Supreme Court agreed, overruled the 9th Circuit and found that the words "under God" should remain in our Pledge of Allegiance.
The bill brought before the House of Representatives last week, despite its name, would not protect the Pledge of Allegiance. It would totally deny any federal court jurisdiction over the pledge, including appeals to the Supreme Court. It would allow each individual state court system to determine what the content of the Pledge should be. If a Texas state court decided that the words "under God" were unconstitutional, then no school child in Texas would be able to say those words. There would be no recourse to overturn this state court decision. As a result, we would no longer have a National Pledge of Allegiance. Each state would have their own version of the pledge. In my opinion, that is destroying the national pledge, not protecting it.
In the end, I firmly believe that one Nation under God should be recited in a single and unified Pledge of Allegiance. No one single institution, be it
local, state, or federal, judicial or legislative, should have the only authority to guarantee individual liberty. I think our current system of checks and balances, created by our forefathers, is the most correct.
People who believe their rights or beliefs are in jeopardy should be able to turn to their state or to Congress or to the federal courts, including the
Supreme Court, for relief. We should not be limiting their options.