Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

STOP THE ROGUE SUPREME COURT! SUPPORT HR 97!!
http://thomas.loc.gov/ ^

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.


TOPICS: Announcements; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 109th; constitution; internationallaw; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-145 next last
To: totherightofu

BTTT!


61 posted on 03/03/2005 8:12:19 AM PST by lunarbicep (If the opposite of pro is con, then whats the opposite of progress?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grut
Congress can't tell the Court how to do its job, only the Constitution can.

Perhaps not, but the Congress clearly can put whatever they wish off limits to the courts! See excert from the Constitution below:

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:

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.

62 posted on 03/03/2005 8:19:49 AM PST by Bigun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: totherightofu
Liberals!

Do not worry!

Our activist judges will declare this law along with our Constitution to be unconstitutional based of foreign laws.

Ooops ... this was supposed to be posted to DU.

63 posted on 03/03/2005 8:20:16 AM PST by fella
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fella
Our activist judges will declare this law along with our Constitution to be unconstitutional based of foreign laws.

Oooh, then it would be time to start impeachment proceedings.

64 posted on 03/03/2005 8:28:38 AM PST by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Grut

That's exactly what it would take, but it can be done, if Congress has the stones to do it. The Court cannot be allowed to go rogue, and it is becoming just that. I'll support this bill. In fact, let's add another Constitutional Amendement, too- limiting Court appointments to a term of 25 years, instead of lifetime appts.
There's no need to keep them at the Court forever, until they fossilize, or lose thier minds as this Court seems to have done.
Make no mistake, folks, the Supreme Court has just given the finger to the Governors, Legislatures and citizens of 19 states with the juvenile death penalty ruling. The Ten Commandments may be next, and God knows what elese. They seem intnet on establishing an oligarchy (I think that's the term). They have to be put in their place!


65 posted on 03/03/2005 8:30:16 AM PST by 95 Bravo ("Freedom is not free.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: totherightofu

THANKS!..I'll have a copy, delivered to Sen. Mike McConnell (KY-R, Senate Majority Whip) and to Sen.Jim Bunting this afternoon. :))


66 posted on 03/03/2005 8:37:03 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #67 Removed by Moderator

To: MileHi
This "sense of the house" amounts to an opinion and is not binding. It does nothing. They should be drafting articles of impeachment. That would actually accomplish something.

Agreed! Gutless. We've lost the Republic. Now it's just sweeping out the remaining inconvenient stuff that's left over. I think the Justices should start appending additional titles to their names, like the Emperors in ancient Rome.

68 posted on 03/03/2005 8:50:06 AM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sagebrush58
We are also talking about the SCOTUS on another thread. These two threads need to be joined as one. We need coheasion.

Both see the SCOTUS as the same enemy against America.

69 posted on 03/03/2005 8:51:03 AM PST by processing please hold (Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: totherightofu

Not only that, but every law Congress passes should have a rider that explains why the law is constitutional.


70 posted on 03/03/2005 8:52:27 AM PST by Feiny ( I own many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

We lost the Republic some time ago and little time remains to restore it.


71 posted on 03/03/2005 8:55:38 AM PST by dmartin (Who Dares Wins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: demlosers
Oooh, then it would be time to start impeachment proceedings.

With the Constitution being unconstitutional the impeachment proceedings would also be unconstitutional. "Here come the judges."

72 posted on 03/03/2005 8:58:12 AM PST by fella
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: totherightofu

Does the liberty committee have an email blaster set up yet for this bill?


73 posted on 03/03/2005 9:02:43 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
This "sense of the house" amounts to an opinion and is not binding. It does nothing. They should be drafting articles of impeachment. That would actually accomplish something.

This resolution amount to a Declaration of Impotence.

Drafting Articles of Impeachment and even Impeaching one or more Justices would accomplish nothing, because you need 67 Senators to convict and that won't happen.

Instead, the House should pass a bill increasing the number of SCOTUS Justices to fifteen justices -- effective seven days after the bill becomes Law. Then the Senate needs to use the "nucular" option to ram the bill thorugh and subsequently confirm six new Scalias.

74 posted on 03/03/2005 9:03:32 AM PST by You Dirty Rats (Mindless BushBot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
We've lost the Republic.

Well, we are at least damn close to it. These jurists need to be throttled and soon.

75 posted on 03/03/2005 9:05:14 AM PST by MileHi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
Art.3 Sec 2 C2 gives the Congress control over the Court's jurisdiction, i.e., what types of cases the Court can hear. It doesn't give the Congress any control of the Court's deliberations, which is what the proposed law would assert.

I think the idea of restricting the Court to American law is a good one; I just don't think it can be done without a Constitutional amendment.

76 posted on 03/03/2005 9:07:35 AM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: totherightofu
The Federalist No. 81

It may in the last place be observed that the supposed danger of judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority, which has been upon many occasions reiterated, is in reality a phantom. Particular misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature may now and then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to amount to an inconvenience, or in any sensible degree to affect the order of the political system. This may be inferred with certainty, from the general nature of the judicial power, from the objects to which it relates, from the manner in which it is exercised, from its comparative weakness, and from its total incapacity to support its usurpations by force. And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments in one part of the legislative body, and of determining upon them in the other, would give to that body upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations. While this ought to remove all apprehensions on the subject, it affords, at the same time, a cogent argument for constituting the Senate a court for the trial of impeachments.

77 posted on 03/03/2005 9:11:47 AM PST by michigander (The Constitution only guarantees the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: totherightofu
Your thread title is a little hyperbolic, don't you think? Resolutions aren't worth the paper on which they are written. How, exactly will this sense of the House resolution stop the rogue judiciary? Wouldn't it be better for Mr. Freeney to introduce a bill that actually has some weight? Why is he wasting time with this style over substance move? Why isn't he introducing a bill to limit jurisdiction or one of the many other Constitutional remedies available to the legislative branch? Does anyone think that people who are completely unimpressed by the authority of the US Constitution are going to be swayed by a sense of the House resolution? Please, get serious.
78 posted on 03/03/2005 9:19:54 AM PST by NCSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grut
I do not agree with that assesment.

It seems to me that the phrase; and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make is fairly broad.

79 posted on 03/03/2005 9:21:57 AM PST by Bigun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: michigander
This may be inferred with certainty, from the general nature of the judicial power, from the objects to which it relates, from the manner in which it is exercised, from its comparative weakness, and from its total incapacity to support its usurpations by force.

What Hamilton could not have foreseen here is the eventuality that our legislative and executive branches of Federal government would be populated with cowards. He also neglected to consider a President who 80 years hence would use the military to enforce the will of the judiciary, forever cowing the states into submission.

80 posted on 03/03/2005 9:27:20 AM PST by NCSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-145 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson