Posted on 01/09/2004 5:44:16 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK
HRES 468 IH
Expressing disapproval of the consideration by Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of foreign laws and public opinion in their decisions, urging the end of this practice immediately to avoid setting a dangerous precedent, and urging all Justices to base their opinions solely on the merits under the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. GRAVES submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
Expressing disapproval of the consideration by Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of foreign laws and public opinion in their decisions, urging the end of this practice immediately to avoid setting a dangerous precedent, and urging all Justices to base their opinions solely on the merits under the Constitution of the United States.
Whereas each Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States takes a judicial oath, which states the following: `I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as [Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States] under the Constitution and laws of the United States.';
Whereas section 1 of article III of the Constitution states the following: `The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.';
Whereas paragraph 1 of section 2 of article III of the Constitution states the following: `The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.';
Whereas paragraph 2 of section 2 of article III of the Constitution states the following: `In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.';
Whereas paragraph 3 of section 2 of article III of the Constitution states the following: `The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.';
Whereas section 1 of article I of the Constitution states the following: `All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.';
Whereas section 1 of article II of the Constitution states the following: `The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.';
Whereas Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's opinion for the Supreme Court of the United States in Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 2483 (2003), refers to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and other courts and states the following: `Other nations, too, have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries.';
Whereas Associate Justice John Paul Stevens's opinion for the Court in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 314, 316 (2002), refers to opinions of the national and world communities and states the following: `The practice, therefore, has become truly unusual, and it is fair to say that a national consensus has developed against it.';
Whereas Associate Justice Steven G. Breyer's dissenting opinion in the denial by the Court of the petition for a writ of certiorari in Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990 (1999), cites foreign sources of law, including the courts of Canada, India, Jamaica, and Zimbabwe, as well as the United Nations; and
Whereas Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in a speech to the American Constitution Society that judges `are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives.': Now, therefore, be it
END
Rank | Location | Receipts | Donors/Avg | Freepers/Avg | Monthlies | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
57 | South Dakota | 20.00 |
1 |
20.00 |
44 |
0.45 |
30.00 |
2 |
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
You get with it if ya wanna im a Conservative
Whereas Americans will be held to the standards of other countries and peoples just as we hold them to ours;
Whereas the United States is part of a larger global community, and we are each an ambassador to it;
Whereas it is in the interest of peace and harmony to be polite and respectful of others' opinions, even when we firmly disagree with them;
Resolved, that I--
(1) am glad that the Supreme Court Justices are willing to make decisions as if the entire world would be asked to live by them.
Hell, yeah! The UN - in NYC (the last time I checked) - used as a foreign source of law. It is!
We are importing the replacement workers culled by the prior generation of breeders who were too self absorbed to not murder their offspring for a few years of no responsibility.
The next step in denying God's sovereignty over the United States will go to these nine people . .
"The question is or at least ought to be, how can such a small, godless, minority have such influence over our courts and legislative processes?"
Answer:
Back Row (left to right): Ginsburg, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
Front Row (left to right): Scalia, Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy
sovereignty
Variant(s): also sovranty /-tE/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soveraineté, from Old French, from soverain
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is SOVEREIGN; especially : an autonomous state
There may still be a trace of hope left for this (once) great nation . . .
Whereas Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in a speech to the American Constitution Society that judges `are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives.':
Now, therefore, be it
Well, maybe they'll read it if the Washington Post puts it in their morning newspaper. Don't count on it.
Supreme Court Justices (Judicial Branch)
According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''
Sure. But taking recognition of facts commonly known, but not introduced into court, is a very common legal practice among judges and one that makes sense.
The liberal judges have taken it one step further to recognize foreign laws. In a very abstract view of things, I don't have a problem with that. It's the next step, that giving them some weight and influence over their decisions that gets very close to treason.
But if getting a new conservative judge confirmed for the SC is tough, just imagine what would happen if you tried to impeach a liberal one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.