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.
What Hamilton could not have foreseen here is the eventuality that Americans would populate the legislative and executive branches of Federal government with cowards.
From a CNN report of the death penalty ruling:
'Juvenile offenders have been put to death in recent years in only a few other countries, including Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia. Kennedy cited international opposition to the practice.
"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime," he wrote.'
The supreme court didn't use international law as a basis for the ruling, only referred to other countries to show that their position was similar to that of other countries.
Once again a symbolic issue is raised by some political group, gets everyone hot under the collar, and deflects people from discussions of real issues.
As several comments have already said this bill is just grandstanding by politicians that want to use it in their next round of fund raising letters.
How does this put food on your family's table?
Exactly so. I stand corrected.
I just sent the resolution 97 to my Rep. Don Sherwood. Greatest thing we can do is get this started....can we email Rush and Sean and get them to help us announce it? Or would it be better to wait?
"How does this put food on your family's table?"
What a lame, irrelevant question. Of course it doesn't. But it may GET THE BALL ROLLING to reign in a rogue SCOTUS. If that doesn't interest you, then that's your problem.
E-mailing Rush and Sean is a great idea!
This may be merely a "toothless" resolution now, but if Congress gets the STRONG message that Americans WANT SOMETHING DONE about SCOTUS it just may evolve into something else (i.e. impeachment proceedings). Even if they are never impeached, at least they will get the message. The defeatists here will NOT get me down, either. ;)
Ask Mr. Freeeney, since obviously I can't speak for him.
At this point this is ALL THERE IS, and IMO it's BETTER THAN NOTHING. It just may evolve into something with "teeth." If you disagree then don't support it.
So when you disagree with a court ruling it is a "rogue" court.
The way it works in a democracy is that sometimes some people are happy with what the government does and sometimes they aren't.
Did you have a problem with the death penalty ruling? If so, what is it?
"So when you disagree with a court ruling it is a 'rogue' court."
No, it's a rogue court when they IGNORE the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, i.e. the laws of 19 states, and do consider unsigned treaties and laws of foreign countries. The arrogant statement by Rehnquist only underscores their "above reproach" attitude.
"The way it works in a democracy is that sometimes some people are happy with what the government does and sometimes they aren't."
WOW!! That's a BRILLIANT observation (not!). To a 1st grader.
"Did you have a problem with the death penalty ruling? If so, what is it?"
Stated above.
Wrong. This is far worse than doing nothing. This allows the invertebrates in Congress to declare they have done something when in fact they have done nothing. Mr. Feeney has provided political cover for those like him who are too cowardly to act in a manner that upholds the oath they took.
How do the laws of 19 states indicate the will of the people?
Apparently the will of the people seems to be open to debate.
That's why we have a judicial review system to bring uniformity to laws when necessary.
If it makes you feel better to make personal attacks then perhaps you should have your meds adjusted.
Let me urge you to read up on how our republic works. You might start with a short document known as the United States Constitution. From there you can branch out to the Federalist Papers for additional insight. Be sure to glance at the Declaration of Independence while you're at it.
Once you've done your homework, I'm sure you'll realize how foolish are your remarks.
That's why we have a judicial review system to bring uniformity to laws when necessary.
Please cite the part of the Constitution that gives judicial review of states' laws to the US Supreme Court. Uniformity of laws enforced by an oligarchical jurisprudence is also known as totalitarianism. Last time I checked, we don't do that here.
WHOOOO HOOOOO!!! Email, FAX, write letters, call and tell your congressman YOU EXPECT THEM TO SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION!!
THIS IS MOST AWESOME AND IS EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE YEARS AGO - we must stop these judges from using INTERNATIONAL LAW - instead of our own Constitution.
If this is signed into law would it overturn those decisions that were made citing foreign law?
Are they actually going to enforce this thing by impeaching judges? No way! The Pubbies don't have the guts.
Until the Civil War, judicial review fell well within the perceived constraints declared by Alexander Hamilton. There was a balance of power. After Lincoln demonstrated that the Federal government (and its military might) made Hamilton's assertions on judicial power a pipe dream, the court has been used to political end ever since. Only recently has the court become so arrogant as to assert its own will and to effectively legislate from the bench.
As Jefferson astutely observed:
"The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body — working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
Basing their rulings upon foreign courts' opinions is definitely cross-graining the very Constitution that gives the Judiciary their power. IMO, if they usurp that, they are under NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER, and are "nullified".
The Congress can, however, tell the Court what its job is. The Congress has the authority to limit the Court's jurisdiction and it can certainly legislate away the Court's self-proclaimed power of judicial review.
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.