H.Res. 132 · 108th Congress
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow…
Full title
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.
Key: what the circles and colors mean
Each circle is a bill. The ring fills as it moves through Congress:
Under the number: the Yea · Nay count of its final (or latest) recorded vote. On a member's page, the small badge is how that member voted: Y Yea / Aye, N Nay / No, P Present, – Not voting.
Gold and violet are only for Yea and Nay; they never mean a party. A member's party is the letter on their photo.
63 cosponsors · 6 D, 57 R
40 signed on when it was introduced; the rest joined later. Cosponsors who withdrew aren't shown.
- House Introduced Mar 6, 2003
- House Passed Mar 20, 2003 400–7
What it does: CRS summary · Passed House without amendment · Mar 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.
Written by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. All summary versions on Congress.gov
Votes to become law
About this bill and sources
Official title: 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.
Latest action (Mar 20, 2003): Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Policy area: Government Operations and Politics · Origin: House · Introduced: Mar 6, 2003
Official page on Congress.gov · Bill text (GovInfo) · Status record (XML) · Embed in your story
- House Introduced Mar 6, 2003
- House Passed Mar 20, 2003 400–7
Final vote · House · Mar 20, 2003
Adoption (two-thirds required) — Passed. Vote details
Speaker of the House: J. Dennis Hastert