Mr. Speaker, it seems that many Members of this House must really be dissatisfied with their jobs. Instead of being legislators, they seem to want to be Federal judges. Every Member, like every citizen, is entitled to express an opinion on any ruling by any court. That is what our system of government is about. What concerns me is that too many people here seem to think it is the job of Congress to order courts to decide cases certain ways or to consider issues that we want them to consider.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) should read his own resolution. His resolution does not ask the Supreme Court to decide between the Ninth and Fourth Circuit views. It asks them to decide that the Fourth Circuit is right and the Ninth Circuit is wrong. It asks for a certain specific direction.

We have considered bills here to take away certain Federal court jurisdiction because some Members do not like certain court decisions. We have heard threats against judges, against the courts, even statements by some who have said that they understand the murder of judges. This resolution is not binding, and it is probably as innocuous as they come; but it is part of a greater campaign of delegitimizing the independent judiciary, by implication our system of checks and balances and our system of government.

Courts are supposed to rule on cases that come before them; to call them as they see them; to decide what the Constitution means as the court sees it, as Judge Roberts recently told the Senate regardless of popular opinion. That is their job. It is not our job to pressure the court to decide the case a specific way. If we do not like a court decision, we can amend the law. We can start a constitutional amendment if we disagree with a court decision.

I am more than a bit concerned that Members seem to want to decide this case for themselves, but I am more concerned by the constant assertions by Members and some courts that the phrase ``One Nation Under God'' is not a form of religious expression. As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) mentioned, constitutionally the only way, since it is clear that we cannot have an establishment of religion, since the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court for the last 40 years says that we cannot mandate a prayer, that we cannot mandate that children in school should say a prayer, we cannot lead an organized prayer in a public school, as I have said repeatedly on this floor, there will always be prayer in the public schools as long as there are math tests, but we cannot have organized prayer where an agent of the State, namely the teacher, says this is the prayer you shall say. That is an establishment of religion, and it is against the first amendment.

The only way around that is by saying that the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance does not mean anything. It is a mere patriotic expression. It is not religious. It does not mean anything. I think that is sacrilegious. Frankly, it violates the Second Commandment: ``Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.'' Maybe we should have the Ten Commandments here, so people can take a look at it every so often.

Frankly, references to God are inherently religious, and it is a sin to use the Lord's name for any other purpose. It is a religious expression with which not all people, including people of different religions, might agree. It is not out of the question that a court could reasonably conclude that this sentence is a religious expression, that it is inherently coercive when the government makes it part of every school day. That is what the Ninth Circuit did conclude.

It is not the job of Congress to tell the court what to decide, and certainly not the job of Congress to tell the court that God is not religious. If God is not religious, then nothing is religious.

I know most people will look at this vote and think it is a vote on whether or not you support the Pledge of Allegiance; whether or not you are loyal, in fact, to this government; or whether or not you are a person of faith or whether you support God. It is unfortunate that we have to politicize this issue in this way, and that is the real reason for this resolution, since it is totally innocuous, is not binding and has no effect.

But it is even more unfortunate that there is so little respect for our system of government and such enthusiasm for delegitimizing the judiciary every time someone disagrees with a court ruling. That is very dangerous. The future of our Nation depends on the preservation of our system of government, the preservation of the independence of the courts, and not on the text of the Pledge that children are asked to recite in school.