Posted on 03/03/2005 6:23:35 AM PST by totherightofu
H. RES. 97 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that judicial determinations regarding the meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based on judgments, laws, or pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such foreign judgments, laws, or pronouncements inform an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 15, 2005 Mr. FEENEY (for himself, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. DELAY, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. CANNON, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. BAKER, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. CHOCOLA, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. AKIN, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. PENCE, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. TERRY, Mr. PICKERING, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. PITTS, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. FORTUN.AE6O, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. FORBES, Mr. POE, Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mr. CARTER, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, and Mr. MACK) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
-------------------------------------------------------
RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that judicial determinations regarding the meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based on judgments, laws, or pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such foreign judgments, laws, or pronouncements inform an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
Whereas the Declaration of Independence announced that one of the chief causes of the American Revolution was that King George had `combined to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws';
Whereas the Supreme Court has recently relied on the judgments, laws, or pronouncements of foreign institutions to support its interpretations of the laws of the United States, most recently in Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 2474 (2003);
Whereas the Supreme Court has stated previously in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 921 n.11 (1997), that `We think such comparative analysis inappropriate to the task of interpreting a constitution . . .'
Whereas Americans' ability to live their lives within clear legal boundaries is the foundation of the rule of law, and essential to freedom;
Whereas it is the appropriate judicial role to faithfully interpret the expression of the popular will through the Constitution and laws enacted by duly elected representatives of the American people and our system of checks and balances;
Whereas Americans should not have to look for guidance on how to live their lives from the often contradictory decisions of any of hundreds of other foreign organizations; and
Whereas inappropriate judicial reliance on foreign judgments, laws, or pronouncments threatens the sovereignty of the United States, the separation of powers and the President's and the Senate's treaty-making authority: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that judicial interpretations regarding the meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based in whole or in part on judgments, laws, or pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such foreign judgments, laws, or pronouncements inform an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice.
At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.
Exerpt from:
Abraham Lincoln's
First Inaugural Address
Monday, March 4, 1861
Bump
Interestingly, most negative comments about the power of the central government usually concern the rise of executive power over the legislative branch.
There have been many notable cases (especially during the civil rights era) when the government just refused to carry out court rulings.
As a matter of fact we are seeing such a situation now with the prisoners in Cuba. The courts have made several ruling abut procedural steps to be taken with regards to hearings, etc. and so far, have been ignored.
Judges have seemed to be reasonably good at preserving their domain. Congress, on the other hand seems to have lost much of its independence.
Uh, it's not a "Bill".
Its a toothless feel-good "House Resolution". It carries the same weight as a Poll here on FR. Or better yet, on what you decide to have for dinner. So save your LD call to your Reps, spend the money on something useful.
What we need is this:
An Act to Amend the Constitution of the United States
The penalty of death is not, in and of itself, cruel or unusual punishment, and any method of execution historical used in the United States, including specifically hanging, gas, lethal injection or firing squad, does not violate the 8th Amendment of this Constitution. Further, the several States, each of them together or separately, may through their legislative process set any age limit or restriction upon such penalty it deems appropriate, impose such penalty for any rape or sodomy by force, robbery, murder or treason, and make such penalty the only penalty for the commission of any such offense as it so elects. The Courts of the United States, including the Supreme Court, shall not have jurisdiction to review such legislative acts.
That would actually change something.
Ironic, don't you think? Especially in light of the fact that Lincoln then proceeded to put the might of the Executive behind a decision "irrevocably fixed" by the court.
I thought so too. The very thing he cautioned of in early '61 seemingly was his intention for government to become.
This from the fella that prevented the Secession decision from going before the SCOTUS out of fear it would have been determined constitutional and in the bargain save 600,000 American lives...
(Sorry for the distraction and rant but Lincoln is not my favorite as you can tell. I would prefer the logic of the founders in supporting the constitution. Lincoln was not one to be tightly bound by his oath to support it.)
Lincoln also said in his First Inaugural: "You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect, and defend it."
However, his oath was NOT to 'preserve, protect, and defend' the GOVERNMENT, but was to 'preserve, protect, and defend' the Constitution of the United States of America. He even acknowledged the Constitution's silence upon the legality of states' secession, so he didn't uphold the Constitution in that regard.
By means of a Constitutional amendment, is all I'm saying.
Another Question: The President took an oath of office to protect, defend the Constitution of the United States, so if we get the Surpreme Court to change their minds on this ruling they made, in my opinion illegally, could he inforce it because he thinks its in the best interest of the United States?
To better understand the original meaning of the Constitution, sometimes one must consider earlier laws or court cases. H.R. 97 wouldn't prevent the courts from relying on those older cases/laws, but it would advise against relying on modern foreign laws.
For instance, the authors of our Constitution were familiar with British law at the time, and those British laws must have influenced our laws, so it is reasonable sometimes to cite older explanations, such as William(?) Blackstone's comments on British laws back in the 1700's, to better understand our Constitution. It is unreasonable to cite modern foreign laws because our Constitution does not derive from them and because we don't necessarily consider all the circumstances that influence the applications of the laws in foreign countries.
After reading Justice Kennedy's opinion in the recent case involving death penalties for minors, and after hearing O'Conner's comments about international law serving as a guide for her decisions, this bill is essential.
BIG BTTT
Oh crap ... it isn't a bill, just a resolution.
Nice cop out Congress critters.
It means you're not cut out to be a lawyer.
It also means is that Constitution should be interpreted in the context of the legal framework in effect in other countries at the time the Constitution was written. When the Constitution speaks of admiralty and maritime law, they didn't define it.
They were borrowing the concepts from Europe. It's the same with many of the other terms and provisions. What were they thinking of when they chose those words? "Full Faith and Credit" was drawn from British court cases.
Ask and ye shall receive, I suppose. To say the least, I support it. Now if they might bundle it with a copy of the Constitution, and spend a few hours in slow parade, marching it over to the steps of the Court? It's a message this Court needs to hear.
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.