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.

[D Rider]

It's about time. If we can get this passed, it may hold us over till we have enough to impeach the lawless ones off the court.

[Boardwalk]

I thought Romney did that? It seemed that he was trying like hell to ban homo marriage!? Maybe I missed something?

[Les_Miserables]

A sense of the House resolution is a spineless copout, and I wouldn't spend a dime or five minutes of my time promoting it. Congress should not "express its sense", Congress should FORBID, by statute in the form of an Article III regulation, ANY use of ANY foreign court or parliamentary opinion in any adjudication before ANY US Court. Nothing less will suffice..

Yep exactly right. They are just posturing to make us think they are doing something. What disingenuous crap.

[lifelongsoldier]

Article III

Section 1. 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

Congress not only can interfere with the Judiciary, they have a Constitutional mandate to do so. Note the portion where the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish any courts they deem proper at any time of their choosing. Those "inferior courts" are the Federal Judges of whom we wish to rid ourselves. The Congress can do so, if they ever develop cojones.

[Boardwalk]

Thanks for the clarification. MA is a mess! I guess I had more hope for Romney, it seemed like he was going to kick ass, but, he is up against a lot of big asses!

[savedbygrace]

Sense of the House (or Senate) resolutions are generally written and passed so they can avoid ding anything real, with teeth.

This is an empty pap for the masses.

[Malesherbes]

Congress has the power under the Constitution to limit the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. It's there in black and white and plain English. It's time for Congress to stop passing resolutions and start passing limitations.

[Parmenio]

Does anyone know if there is there a companion resolution going through the Senate?

[William Terrell]

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

[Les_Miserables]

Right. Our battle cry to congress ought to be "It's Article 3 stupid!"

[processing please hold]

Called my Congressman and Freeney's office in support of HR 97.

[processing please hold]

I think Article III Sec. 2, 2nd paragraph can be used by the Congress if they will do so to define somethings such that the Courts are limited in their scope.... 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.

Ahhhh, but you forget, the SCOTUS doesn't care about the Constitution. They like international law better.

[antisocial]

I hope you just forgot the sarcasm tag.

[demlosers]

BTTT!

[Mr. Lucky]

No, seriously, the specific written language of the Constitution should give way to the feeeeeeeeelings of five unelected geriatrics in black dresses.

[olde north church]

Just called to make my voice heard. I hesitated when they asked for my name, I almost blurted out "Rusty Shackleford", but I figured they had caller id anyway.