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

Skip to comments.

***FYI*** H. RES. 468 Expressing disapproval IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
http://thomas.loc.gov ^ | November 21, 2003 | 108th CONGRESS Mr. GRAVES

Posted on 01/09/2004 5:44:16 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK

HRES 468 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. RES. 468

Expressing disapproval of the consideration by Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of foreign laws and public opinion in their decisions, urging the end of this practice immediately to avoid setting a dangerous precedent, and urging all Justices to base their opinions solely on the merits under the Constitution of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 21, 2003

Mr. GRAVES submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


RESOLUTION

Expressing disapproval of the consideration by Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of foreign laws and public opinion in their decisions, urging the end of this practice immediately to avoid setting a dangerous precedent, and urging all Justices to base their opinions solely on the merits under the Constitution of the United States.

Whereas each Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States takes a judicial oath, which states the following: `I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as [Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States] under the Constitution and laws of the United States.';

Whereas section 1 of article III of the Constitution states the following: `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.';

Whereas paragraph 1 of section 2 of article III of the Constitution states the following: `The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.';

Whereas paragraph 2 of section 2 of article III of the Constitution states the following: `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.';

Whereas paragraph 3 of section 2 of article III of the Constitution states the following: `The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.';

Whereas section 1 of article I of the Constitution states the following: `All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.';

Whereas section 1 of article II of the Constitution states the following: `The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.';

Whereas Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's opinion for the Supreme Court of the United States in Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 2483 (2003), refers to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and other courts and states the following: `Other nations, too, have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries.';

Whereas Associate Justice John Paul Stevens's opinion for the Court in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 314, 316 (2002), refers to opinions of the national and world communities and states the following: `The practice, therefore, has become truly unusual, and it is fair to say that a national consensus has developed against it.';

Whereas Associate Justice Steven G. Breyer's dissenting opinion in the denial by the Court of the petition for a writ of certiorari in Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990 (1999), cites foreign sources of law, including the courts of Canada, India, Jamaica, and Zimbabwe, as well as the United Nations; and

Whereas Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in a speech to the American Constitution Society that judges `are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives.': Now, therefore, be it

END


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: globalism; hres468; internationallaw; lawrencevtexas; scotus

1 posted on 01/09/2004 5:44:17 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Brav-freaking-o.
2 posted on 01/09/2004 5:46:04 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Rank Location Receipts Donors/Avg Freepers/Avg Monthlies
57 South Dakota 20.00
1
20.00
44
0.45
30.00
2

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

3 posted on 01/09/2004 5:47:09 PM PST by Support Free Republic (Hi Mom! Hi Dad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Let the impeachments begin.
4 posted on 01/09/2004 5:54:04 PM PST by Stopislamnow (Islam-Founded by Evil, and thriving on death. Just like the modern democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Sovereignty and borders are passe. Get with the (RNC/DNC)program.
5 posted on 01/09/2004 5:55:14 PM PST by dagnabbit (Tell Bush what to do with his Mexico Merger - Write in Tancredo in your State's primary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagnabbit
Get with the (RNC/DNC)program

You get with it if ya wanna im a Conservative

6 posted on 01/09/2004 5:58:35 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK (If guns kill people where are mine hiding all the bodies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Whereas it is an individual's right to do as they damn well please where it does not impinge on others' rights;

Whereas Americans will be held to the standards of other countries and peoples just as we hold them to ours;

Whereas the United States is part of a larger global community, and we are each an ambassador to it;

Whereas it is in the interest of peace and harmony to be polite and respectful of others' opinions, even when we firmly disagree with them;

Resolved, that I--

(1) am glad that the Supreme Court Justices are willing to make decisions as if the entire world would be asked to live by them.

7 posted on 01/09/2004 6:05:34 PM PST by coulson3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
But are you a "compassionate" conservative? That's what counts these days. Hint: If you don't love illegal aliens more than Americans you're not in the club.
8 posted on 01/09/2004 6:09:15 PM PST by dagnabbit (Tell Bush what to do with his Mexico Merger - Write in Tancredo in your State's primary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Justice Steven G. Breyer's dissenting opinion in the denial cites foreign sources of law, including the courts of Canada, India, Jamaica, and Zimbabwe, as well as the United Nations;...

Hell, yeah! The UN - in NYC (the last time I checked) - used as a foreign source of law. It is!

9 posted on 01/09/2004 6:10:47 PM PST by Libloather (Dubya's got the RATS tied in knots. It's party time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagnabbit
The immigration/border issue is exactly what we reap. When we killed 40 million American babies by abortion since 1974, just how else is social security supposed to work?

We are importing the replacement workers culled by the prior generation of breeders who were too self absorbed to not murder their offspring for a few years of no responsibility.

10 posted on 01/09/2004 6:53:36 PM PST by blackdog (I'm hooked on phonics but smoking it is not so easy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; ATOMIC_PUNK; JohnHuang2; MeeknMing; kevao; jpsb; Dubya; Salem; SJackson; dennisw; yall; ..
USSC CALLED ON THE CARPET FOR RAPING THE CONSTITUTION PING!

The next step in denying God's sovereignty over the United States will go to these nine people . .

"The question is or at least ought to be, how can such a small, godless, minority have such influence over our courts and legislative processes?"

Answer:

U.S. Supreme Court, 2003 - The Oligarchy*

(All Your Sovereignty Are Belong To Us!)

Justices of the Supreme Court

Back Row (left to right): Ginsburg, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
Front Row (left to right): Scalia, Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy

ol•i•gar•chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

sov•er•eign•ty
Variant(s): also sov•ran•ty /-tE/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soveraineté, from Old French, from soverain
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is SOVEREIGN; especially : an autonomous state


11 posted on 01/09/2004 6:57:21 PM PST by Happy2BMe (r)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Somebody pinch me - throw cold water on me - IS THIS FOR REAL? !!

There may still be a trace of hope left for this (once) great nation . . .

Whereas Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in a speech to the American Constitution Society that judges `are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives.':

Now, therefore, be it


12 posted on 01/09/2004 7:03:02 PM PST by Happy2BMe (r)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
It's a nice gesture, but that's all it is. The Supreme Court Justices will never notice, nor are they required to do so.

Well, maybe they'll read it if the Washington Post puts it in their morning newspaper. Don't count on it.

13 posted on 01/09/2004 7:04:54 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Does the US Congress have the authority to impeach a member of the USSC for violation of oath?

Supreme Court Justices (Judicial Branch)

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''


14 posted on 01/09/2004 7:08:52 PM PST by Happy2BMe (r)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
We know there are at least a few good Congressmen and women in the House. The problem is there's too many RINOs and democrats fouling it up.
15 posted on 01/09/2004 7:11:38 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Does the US Congress have the authority to impeach a member of the USSC for violation of oath?

Sure. But taking recognition of facts commonly known, but not introduced into court, is a very common legal practice among judges and one that makes sense.

The liberal judges have taken it one step further to recognize foreign laws. In a very abstract view of things, I don't have a problem with that. It's the next step, that giving them some weight and influence over their decisions that gets very close to treason.

But if getting a new conservative judge confirmed for the SC is tough, just imagine what would happen if you tried to impeach a liberal one.

16 posted on 01/09/2004 7:19:17 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Good expression.
17 posted on 01/09/2004 8:25:52 PM PST by WOSG (Freedom, Baby! Yeah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
We need punishment for the Justices and removal from the bench for failing to uphold their duties!!!
18 posted on 01/09/2004 8:28:27 PM PST by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coulson3
There is no such thing as a "global community" - don't mistake trade agreements as culture sharing.
19 posted on 01/09/2004 8:33:54 PM PST by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
They'll get it - it's inside Washington crap - they're getting smacked down right in their own back yard.
20 posted on 01/09/2004 8:35:27 PM PST by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
You mean a liberal one that sided with sodomy and may side against God in the Pledge?

You could sell out shows to that show.

Nobody would blink.
21 posted on 01/09/2004 8:37:15 PM PST by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
I don't know what to say. This was a long time comming. What I'd like to know is: What'll they do to them if they DON'T comply?
22 posted on 01/09/2004 11:33:57 PM PST by Marie (Laz, you touch my tag and die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Well now, about time.
23 posted on 01/10/2004 1:47:45 AM PST by Memother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE FROM JUDICIAL TYRANNYCongress, the Court, and the Constitution

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any FEDERAL COURT becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter, REMOVE JURISDICTION, or to abolish it, and to REinstitute FEDERALISM BY APPOINTING COMPETENT JUDGES, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that FEDERAL JUDGES long established should not be IMPEACHED Topics in Judicial History for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by IMPEACHING JUDGES Law Review Article to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute JUDICIAL Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to IMPEACH & REMOVE, and to provide new JUDGES for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these STATES; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present Federal Courts is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. Judicial Monopoly Over the Constitution: Jefferson's View

24 posted on 01/10/2004 8:08:08 AM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

But if getting a new conservative judge confirmed for the SC is tough, just imagine what would happen if you tried to impeach a liberal one.

Law Review Article

25 posted on 01/10/2004 8:34:44 AM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
Good article.

Nonetheless, it takes more votes in the Senate to remove a judge than it does to confirm one, and given the partisan nature of the liberal opposition, it's highly unlikely that any Supreme Court judge will be removed for ideological reasons. It would have to be for a reason which cuts across ideology, such as committing the crime of murder.

Even then, there would probably be some partisans who would refuse to convict.

26 posted on 01/10/2004 8:51:52 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Judges are to keep their private ideologies to themselves, and should be removed when failing to do so violates the Constitution.

The present Senate will not convict on any grounds. It is very unlikely a future Senate would either, unless the House created a stir by impeaching more than one whom deserve it. (9th Circuit)

Newsletter of the Federal Courts squeals Judiciary Under Attack

GOPtoday.com - News Article

WASHINGTON - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) today joined Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) in announcing the formation of the House Working Group On Judicial Accountability. The group will work to encourage responsible federal judiciary, and identify and prevent judicial activism.

Congressman Steve King - Iowa 5th Congressional District ...

For the last couple of generations, courts have taken an increasingly activist role in legislating from the bench, which by definition requires them to either ignore or subvert the intent of the Constitution and our nation's laws. A flood of activist decisions from courts around the country, capped by the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, has swept away the very rule of law itself and caused our Founding Fathers to roll over in their graves. The work of our taskforce will allow them to, someday, rest again in peace," said King.

This House working group will ensure that judges fulfill their duties without bias and without substituting their philosophy for the law. Some of their duties include:

"It is an extraordinary honor for a non-lawyer to be named to this groundbreaking taskforce. Putting the cards in place to reestablish the checks of powers as designed by our Founders is the most important assignment that any Member of Congress could be asked to perform. Restraining a runaway judicial system requires significant changes in the educational programs in our universities and law schools. Providing a solution will require short-term, mid-term, and long-term strategic planning," King concluded.

27 posted on 01/10/2004 10:26:33 AM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; ATOMIC_PUNK; sheltonmac
I hope they pass this resolution. It would be a good wake-up call to warn them of the Congressional power of impeachment.

28 posted on 01/10/2004 10:32:58 AM PST by The_Eaglet (http://searchirc.com/search.php?F=exact&T=chan&N=33&I=conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Judge Sets Dates for Lawsuit Against FEC-Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 31
29 posted on 01/10/2004 11:38:59 AM PST by The_Eaglet (http://searchirc.com/search.php?F=exact&T=chan&N=33&I=conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
I don't like to waste time on mere appearances or gestures, but otoh, isn't there something to be said for opposing sc wrongheadedness in any way we can? this being a way that also puts our opposition on the record, puts them on notice (I know, I know, fwiw...).

Ok, then, how's this: if they don't shape up, I'll launch a squirrel in their general direction.
30 posted on 01/10/2004 2:49:37 PM PST by cyn (miss you, Larrylied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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