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.
That's much too broad. There are plenty of legitimate uses for foreign law -- the enforcement of foreign judgments, the interpretation of multinational contracts, etc. I'd even go so far as to say that it's clearly relevant in the interpretation of multilateral treaties signed and executed by the US. Where foreign law should NOT be used is to interpret domestic constitutions (state of US), laws and regulations.
Impeachment, nullification, interposition, and the use of Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution all need to be considered.
We need to hold these officials accountable through impeachment, recall, nullification, interposition and arrest where necessary.
I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny. The nebulous references to "growing national consensus" and citations of "international law" are just too much to countenance. What does it take to make 5 of these justices cognizant of the fact that their authority to preside originates in the US CONSTITUTION?
When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?
To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.
Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful. Congress can and should impeach federal judges for blatently unconstitutional rulings that manufacture law.
Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.
Sorry to point out, that this is just pure hype.
If the SOB's in Congress were serious, they'd impeach the rotten black robed bastards invoking international law over our Constitution.
After impeachment, they need to be indicted, tried and convicted and recieve maximum sentences for violating thier oaths.
bump
'"Even that great advocate of judicial power, Chief Justice John Marshall, wrote during impeachment proceedings against Justice Samuel Chase for his arbitrary use of judicial power that "a Judge giving a legal opinion contrary to the opinion of the legislature is liable to impeachment."'
'Article III states that "The Judges, both of the Supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior," and it is not "good behavior" to hand down rulings based on personal social views rather than the Constitution's words.'
'The impeachment cases brought during our country's first half-century involved non-statutory offenses, such as judicial high-handedness. It's easy to think of some current judges who could be targets for impeachment on that charge.'
'When President Gerald Ford was a Congressman, he proposed the impeachment of one of the most liberal of all Supreme Court Justices, William O. Douglas. Ford, who was a moderate in every sense of the word, explained Congress's tremendous and far-reaching power of impeachment: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body [the Senate] considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office."'
'When we open the topic of impeachment, we hear a lot of impassioned talk about preserving the "independence" of the judiciary. That's really a cover to shield federal judges from accountability. The Founders did not intend life tenure for federal judges to saddle us with a judicial oligarchy.
In our intricate constitutional system of interlacing checks and balances, the legislative and executive branches are held accountable by frequent elections. Judges should be held accountable by the Senate's "advice and consent" power to withhold confirmation, and by the House's power to impeach judges for lack of "good behavior."'
all quotes are quotes from:
It's Time to Hold Federal Judges Accountable
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1997/mar97/psrmar97.html
I doubt that anyone in Congress will agree to proceed with impeachment.
Don't forget Bill Bennett, Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingram and someone who will really get fired up....Neil Boortz!
But IF 51% of some future Congress wanted to make binding regulations on the Supreme Court, they are explicitly empowered to do so in Article III, section 2, and although the Supreme Court could issue contrary "rulings" I'm sure they woud have no force or effect.
I doubt that anyone in Congress will agree to proceed with impeachment.
Alas, you are probably right.
That's where their inability to enforce their decisions without cooperation of the administration will be exposed.
We have to having a conciousness raising exercise. This is what the leftists have done to get us where we are. A resolution like this can at least get some of these phonies on the voting record.
This way, we can get rid of the Kennedys and professional politicians.
No one is that good that Congress can't get along without them. Let's get some new ideas into House and Senate, or maybe some leadership willing to do more than get itself reelected.
I'd cut off the extreme supreme's pay checks to stem further abuse of us American taxpayers since they don't seem to give a Yankee Doodle damn about our Constitution.
Call Arlyn Specter and his Scottish Law firm
Bump and archive for self.
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.