Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. [Page: H4130] Mr. Speaker, I agree with my distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), that the Congress should not pass resolutions like this every time some of us disagree with a court decision. However, this court decision was so out of bounds in terms of basic American values as well as judicial precedent that I think that we would be remiss in our responsibilities as representatives in an equal branch of government not to express the fact that we strongly disagree with what the two judges that struck down the Pledge of Allegiance decided yesterday. So that is why this resolution is here before us.
If we look at the consequences of this decision becoming law, they are just mind-boggling. We have heard about the currency being placed at risk. Maybe we ought to pay those two in rubles or euros or something that does not have the offensive motto ``In God We Trust'' on it.
The Declaration of Independence refers to God either directly or indirectly in four separate places, and the signers of the Declaration of Independence called upon divine providence to support the revolution against the English crown. What if that is unconstitutional? Would Queen Elizabeth come back here to reclaim her sovereignty? I do not think so.
But I think that it is important that while the Court has a chance to change its mind rather than writing something in that can only be overturned by a constitutional amendment, that we express ourselves, and that is exactly what we are doing in this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I could not believe the contorted logic that the two judges that were in the majority in the Newdow case used yesterday. They said that because all of the other kids except Mr. Newdow's daughter got up and recited the Pledge of Allegiance, they were coercing her to do the same. Now, that is ridiculous.
The Court, since 1943, has said, you cannot compel everybody to say the Pledge of Allegiance, and those who voluntarily do not wish to participate are perfectly and legally able to sit down and not do so. But to use the logical extension of the Court's contorted thinking, it gives every heckler and every dissident a veto over what the majority would like to do and to do it in a way that does not coerce somebody who is not in the majority from doing something against their own principles or their own beliefs. This resolution tells the court that they were wrong, that they should review and reverse.