PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Resolution agreed to in Senate with an amendment and with a preamble by Yea-Nay Vote. 94 - 0. Record Vote Number: 39. (text: CR 3/5/2003 S3204; wrong version inadvertently printed on 3/4/2003 CR S3076)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 4, 2003
Declares that the Senate strongly disapproves of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Newdow v. U.S. Congress and the decision of the full court not to reconsider the case en banc.Authorizes and instructs the Senate Legal Counsel either to seek to intervene in the case to defend the constitutionality of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, or if unable to intervene, to file an amicus curiae brief in support of such constitutionality.
People & committees
Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK] · R–AK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Resolution agreed to in Senate with an amendment and with a preamble by Yea-Nay Vote. 94 - 0. Record Vote Number: 39. (text: CR 3/5/2003 S3204; wrong version inadvertently printed on 3/4/2003 CR S3076)
Senate roll call 39 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in Senate: Resolution agreed to in Senate with an amendment and with a preamble by Yea-Nay Vote. 94 - 0. Record Vote Number: 39.(text: CR 3/5/2003 S3204; wrong version inadvertently printed on 3/4/2003 CR S3076)
Senate roll call 39 · Individual votesMeasure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S3074-3076; text of measure as introduced: CR S3101)
Submitted in the Senate and ordered held at desk.
Introduced in Senate
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 S.Res.71 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 S.Res.71 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 S.Res.71 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 S.Res.71 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.