Rep. Doug Ose, Republican from California, introduced House Resolution 132. This resolution Expressed 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 on May 6, 2003. On May 20, 2003 the bill passed the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The vote was held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the bill, needing a two-thirds majority.
House Resolution 132 resolved by the House of Representatives, "That it is 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 thus to the founding of the Nation;
(2) the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, including the phrase, `one Nation, under God,' is a patriotic act, not an act or statement of religious faith or belief;
(3) the phrase `one Nation, under God' should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the practice of voluntarily reciting the pledge in public school classrooms should not only continue but should be encouraged by the policies of Congress, the various States, municipalities, and public school officials;
(4) despite being the school district where the legal challenge to the pledge originated, the Elk Grove Unified School District in Elk Grove, California, should be recognized and commended for their continued support of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag;
(5) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress has created a split among the circuit courts, and is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment, which indicates that the voluntary recitation of the pledge and similar patriotic expressions is consistent with the first amendment;
(6) the Attorney General should appeal the ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress, and the Supreme Court should review this ruling in order to correct this constitutionally infirm and historically incorrect holding; and
(7) the President should nominate and the Senate should confirm Federal circuit court judges who interpret the Constitution consistent with the Constitution's text."