STOP THE ROGUE SUPREME COURT! SUPPORT HR 97!!

http://thomas.loc.gov/ ^

[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.

[Schwaeky]

I agree. The idea of judicial review is the root of the problem-not a matter of the ideology of who's doing it-- that's like saying the Soviet Union failed because the wrong people were in charge.

Judges as a nature in this country, don't seek to right wrongs or be meter out justice, they seek to re-write law. If they have a problem with a law they should, as in the case of many a state court (that is not run rampant like the feds or other states) and simply say, go back and review this, re-write it etc, it does not work, rather than take it upon themselves to rewrite the law....

as for O'Hair (not sure if i recall the opposing side), it was heard with an identical companion case, Abbington vs. Schemp. Lemon vs. Kurtzman was a more recent decision and Lemon actually was more positive step than negative in terms of religious liberty in America (so that claim about Lemon is errant)--if it has a secular purpose, and is not exclusively intended to promote religion, then it is ok (too bad many courts ignore that because that is a perfect legal test for the 10 Commandments controversy)

[biblewonk]

Constitution ping.

[Schwaeky]

Yeah and don't back down like the Frankfurter court did under FDR, and kow-tow under the threat of the court packing to go along with the New deal agenda, the senate should ram rod it through, one way, or another.....

[newgeezer]

Ehhhh, why bother? The SCOTUS will just declare this bill un-Constitutional (and will likely cite some foreign cases).

;O)

[white trash redneck]

I wonder whether our brain-dead Supremes have realized that with their ludicrous decision citing foreign law, they have enabled Muslim savages to argue now that US courts should take sharia law into account, as well. After all, we're certainly not Eurocentric, are we? I'm waiting for a Muslim savage accused of an honor killing, or assaulting a Westerner, to produce the relevant verses of the Koran, complete with exegesis by Muslim scholars, indicating that the defendant's behavior was sanctioned by sharia, and to argue that since the courts take European law and opinion into account, they should accord Muslim law and custom the same respect.