PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 26, 2002
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.
People & committees
Rep. Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-9] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
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)
House roll call 273 · Individual votesPassed/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)
House roll call 273 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 459.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4125-4136)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.Res.459 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.Res.459 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.Res.459 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.Res.459 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.