James Sensenbrenner, March 13, 2003

The Pledge of Allegiance is recited everywhere - in schools, in Congress, and the various picnics and events that take place in Wisconsin during the year. It is a fundamental part of the American heritage, and as such, deserves our protection from the recent irrational court decisions attacking it.

On June 26, 2002, in the case of Newdow v. United States Congress, the ultra-liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals came out with a ruling declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of the words "under God" that were added by Congress in 1954. Later that same day, I introduced a resolution stating that the court’s decision was erroneous, and the phrase "one Nation, under God" should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance. This legislation passed the House by an overwhelming majority the following day, which was also the same day that the Senate passed its own version of the House resolution on the Senate floor.

Last month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to rehear its June ruling. In fact, the Court went on to further amend the June ruling and held that a California public school district’s policy of opening each school day with the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance "impermissibly coerces a religious act" on the part of those students who choose not to recite the pledge.

I could not disagree more. As a result, on March 12, the House Judiciary Committee, which I Chair, reported out H.Res.132. This bill expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the phrase "one Nation, under God" should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance. H.Res.132 also expresses the sense of the House that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decisions in Newdow v. United States Congress are inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment, and urges the Attorney General to appeal the ruling. The bill further urges the President to nominate, and the Senate to confirm, federal circuit court judges who will interpret the Constitution in a manner consistent with its text.

If the initial June ruling wasn’t bad enough, the second February ruling contradicts any reasonable interpretation of the First Amendment. Not surprisingly, these verdicts come from the circuit court that holds the dubious distinction of being reversed by the Supreme Court more than any other circuit in recent history!

The Pledge of Allegiance is not a religious statement or prayer, but instead, it is a statement of allegiance to the ideas and principles on which our nation was founded. No one is required to recite the Pledge, and if anyone disagrees with it or chooses to refrain from saying it, he or she is free to do so. But these two Ninth Circuit Court decisions have the effect of preventing those who want to recite the Pledge from being able to do so. This is a heckler’s veto, and it is wrong. I expect the House to once again pass this legislation shortly, and send a message of support to the US Supreme Court.

James Sensenbrenner, Jr., is a Republican Member of Congress representing the Fifth Congressional District of Wisconsin. He chairs the House Judiciary Committee