HRES 459
107th Congress
House
Government Operations and Politics
Allegiance
Appellate courts
Church and state
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues
Commemorations
Constitutional law
Education
Elementary and secondary education
Flags
Judicial opinions
Law
Oaths
Religion
Religion in the public schools
Religious liberty
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Newdow v. U.S. Congress was erroneously decided, and for other purposes.
Introduced: June 26, 2002
See on congress.gov
Everywhere this bill has been
9 steps
Introduced
In committee
Reported out
Passed House
Passed Senate
To President
Became law
Jun 27, 2002
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Jun 27, 2002
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 416 - 3, 11 Present (Roll no. 273). (text: CR H4125)
Jun 27, 2002
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 416 - 3, 11 Present (Roll no. 273).(text: CR H4125)
Jun 27, 2002
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 459.
Jun 27, 2002
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4125-4136)
Jun 27, 2002
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Jun 26, 2002
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
Jun 26, 2002
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Jun 26, 2002
Introduced in House
Votes taken on this bill
1
| Date | Chamber | What was voted on | Result | Yes–No | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 27, 2002 | House · vote #273 | On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree | Passed | 416–3 | See who voted → |
Plain-English summary
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that: (1) the Pledge of Allegiance, including the phrase "One Nation, under God," reflects the historical fact that a belief in God permeated the founding and development of our Nation; (2) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals's ruling is inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence that the Pledge and similar expressions are not unconstitutional expressions of religious belief; (3) such phrase should remain in the Pledge; and (4) the Ninth Circuit should agree to rehear this ruling en banc in order to reverse this constitutionally infirm and historically incorrect ruling.
What's happening now
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Committees of jurisdiction
2