American Justice for Americans Citizens Act (Introduced in House)

THOMAS DATABASES ^ | April 1, 2004 | Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mrs. MUSGRAVE)

[Ed Current]

HR 4118 IH

108th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 4118

To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 1, 2004

Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mrs. MUSGRAVE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

A BILL

To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `American Justice for Americans Citizens Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The Constitution of the United States, Article VI, states that the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land and that every Senator, Representative, and every executive and judicial officer of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath to faithfully discharge and perform their duties in conformity to the Constitution.

(2) Although the Framers of the Constitution drew from a wide range of political and legal sources in the drafting of its various provisions, they deliberately designed the Constitution as a unique national instrument to govern the elected and appointed officials of the United States and of the several States and their political subdivisions.

(3) The Constitution was originally ordained and ratified by the people of the United States so the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the Federal and State governments would be exercised in accordance with the fixed and enduring principles of the Constitution, as it was ratified by the peoples' representatives in accordance with Article VII of the Constitution, and as stated more than 200 years ago by Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.

(4) Departing from fidelity to the original constitutional text, the Federal judiciary has increasingly disregarded the will of the American people, transforming constitutional principles that were originally designed by the people to be permanent into a set of evolving standards subject to change by judicial opinion, and thereby undermining the American people's right to establish a government according to written constitutional provisions ratified by their elected representatives in constitutional convention.

(5) The Supreme Court of the United States in Atkins v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas found individual `constitutional' rights that are directly contrary to the American common-law tradition when it employed a new technique of interpretation called `transjudicialism': the reliance by American judges upon foreign judicial and other legal sources outside of American constitutional law.

(6) Under this new system of `transjudicialism' or `global law', individual justices of the Supreme Court of the United States have publicly stated they expect American courts to increasingly base their opinions interpreting the Constitution in light of `international law' or `transnational law', thereby amending the Constitution from an expression of `We the People of the United States' to an expression of the will of judges.

(7) The American people are rightfully entitled to be governed by the Constitution, not as amended by judges through the process of `transjudicialism', but as amended by the process set forth in Article V of the Constitution.

(8) To the end that the amendment process provided for in Article V of the Constitution is preserved, and that the Federal courts exercise only judicial power as vested in them by the people, Congress has the power under Article I, section 8, clause 18 and Article III, sections 1 and 2, to regulate the Federal courts.

SEC. 3. INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Neither the Supreme Court of the United States nor any lower Federal court shall, in the purported exercise of judicial power to interpret and apply the Constitution of the United States, employ the constitution, laws, administrative rules, executive orders, directives, policies, or judicial decisions of any international organization or foreign state, except for the English constitutional and common law or other sources of law relied upon by the Framers of the Constitution of the United States.

---

SPEECH OF_

HON. RON PAUL

OF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 2004

• Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the American Justice for American Citizens Act, which exercises Congress's Constitutional authority to regulate the federal judiciary to ensure that federal judges base their decisions solely on American Constitutional, statutory, and traditional common law. Federal judges increasing practice of ``transjudicialism'' makes this act necessary. Transjudicialism is a new legal theory that encourages judges to disregard American law, including the United States Constitution, and base their decisions on foreign law. For example, Supreme Court justices recently used international law to justify upholding race-based college admissions and overturning all state sodomy laws.
• In an October 28, 2003 speech before the Southern Center for International Studies in Atlanta, Georgia, Justice O'Connor stated: ``[i]n ruling that consensual homosexual activity in one's home is constitutionally protected, the Supreme Court relied in part on a series of decisions from the European Court of Human Rights. I suspect that with time, we will rely increasingly on international and foreign law in resolving what now appear to be domestic issues, as we both appreciate more fully the ways in which domestic issues have an international dimension, and recognize the rich resources available to us in the decisions of foreign courts.''
• This statement should send chills down the back of every supporter of Constitutional government. After all, the legal systems of many of the foreign countries that provide Justice O'Connor with ``rich resources'' for her decisions do not respect the same concepts of due process, federalism, and even the presumption of innocence that are fundamental to the American legal system. Thus, harmonizing American law with foreign law could undermine individual rights and limited, decentralized government.
• There has also been speculation that transjudicialism could be used to conform American law to treaties, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the Senate has not ratified. Mr. Speaker, some of these treaties have not been ratified because of concerns regarding their effects on traditional American legal, political, and social institutions. Judges should not be allowed to implement what could be major changes in American society, short-circuit the democratic process, and usurp the Constitutional role of the Senate to approve treaties, by using unratifed treaties as the bases of their decisions.
• All federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, take an oath to obey and uphold the Constitution. The Constitution was ordained and ratified by the people of the United States to provide a charter of governance in accord with fixed and enduring principles, not to empower federal judges to impose the transnational legal elites' latest theories on the American people.
• Mr. Speaker, the drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts precisely so we could intervene when the federal judiciary betrays its responsibility to uphold the Constitution and American law. Congress has a duty to use this power to ensure that judges base their decisions solely on American law.
• Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do their Constitutional duty to ensure that American citizens have American justice by cosponsoring the American Justice for American Citizens Act.

---

Whose Justice?

Judicial activism, the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views, has been a problem in America since well before the Supreme Court invented a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. Many federal judges have become de facto legislators in recent decades, substituting their self-presumed wisdom for the will of Congress. In the process, the American people have lost more and more power to influence the laws under which they must live.

Activist federal judges often view the Constitution as an anachronism that stands in the way of their visions for "social justice." They usually view European socialism very positively, and unconditionally believe in the United Nations and international law. Accordingly, activist judges increasingly are looking outside the US for guidance when deciding cases.

This latest brand of judicial activism has a name: "transjudicialism." Transjudicialism means that American federal judges consider foreign and international legal sources when deciding cases, even though such sources often conflict directly with our own Constitution.

As Robert Bork explains, six of the nine Supreme Court justices have either written or joined opinions that favorably cited foreign authorities. These justices have considered the European Court of Human Rights, various United Nations conventions, international human rights treaties, and even judicial decisions from India, Jamaica, and Zimbabwe when writing their opinions! Simply put, these justices are making the incredible argument that American federal courts should consider sources other than US law when deciding cases. In the words of one justice, the Court "cannot afford to ignore the rest of the world."

It’s not hard to see the grave danger posed by this new trend. Anti-gun judges could cite restrictions on gun ownership in other countries approvingly when disregarding our Second amendment. Hate speech laws in other nations could be used as authority to weaken the First amendment. Our wholly domestic tax, labor, environmental, and family laws could be influenced by United Nations edicts, foreign court judgments, and international treaties which have not been ratified by the United States.

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land in America. Congress needs to exercise its constitutional power over federal courts and send judges a strong message that Americans will be governed by American law only. I recently introduced legislation that forbids the Supreme Court and lower federal courts from citing any foreign or international laws, rules, policies, or court decisions as authority for their opinions. Federal judges take an oath of office promising to decide cases in accordance with the Constitution and US federal law. Those judges who insist on considering foreign law and foreign opinions should be removed from their positions for violating that oath, pure and simple. Justice Scalia warns that "Day by day, case by case, the Court is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize." Congress needs to act quickly before Mr. Scalia’s fears are fully realized.

[taxcontrol]

Nice idea but I'm afraid little more than feel good legislation.

Courts wont listen until the Congress uses it's oversight authority and either starts impeaching rouge Justices or using the budgetary whip to rein in courts.

[Ed Current]

1. Law Review Article
2. The Supreme Court and the Politics of Impeachment by Matthew J. ...
3. It's Time to Hold Federal Judges Accountable -- March 1997 Phyllis ...
4. WallBuilders | Resources | Impeachment of Federal Judges
5. Judicial Tyrants Should Be Impeached

[Prime Choice]

To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.

Starting with the SECOND AMENDMENT in the BILL OF RIGHTS, if you please.

Anything less renders this bill as nothing but a puff piece.

[DTogo]

Right on!!

[Ed Current]

Anyone who fails to grasp the original meaning of the Second Amendment, see The Revolutionary Second Amendment written by Brent J. McIntosh, Law Clerk, Hon. Dennis Jacobs, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit:

The revolutionary understanding of the Second Amendment is founded on the idea that the right to bear arms exists to protect the American populace from governmental tyranny. The revolutionary right to bear arms is premised on the normative assertion that while representative government will generally ensure non-tyrannical governance, it is still imperative that the populace retain the means with which to effectuate the most drastic of representative actions: the overthrow of an antidemocratic regime. If other vehicles for popular control of the government (particularly the vote) fail, the right to alter or abolish the government ensures that the citizenry possesses the ultimate trump card in the interaction between the governing and the governed. This so-called "right of revolution"⁽¹⁹⁾ is a fundamentally collective right; it does not exist for just any dissatisfied citizen to attempt overthrow of the government.⁽²⁰⁾

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[Prime Choice]

This so-called "right of revolution"(19) is a fundamentally collective right

I don't buy the "collective right" argument. There's no way anyone can argue that "the People" means the People in every amendment except the Second Amendment.

Besides, what part of shall not be infringed don't these jackwits understand?

[Bonddad]

This is a terrible idea.

The US is already enmeshed with various foreign organizations -- especially in the area of trade. For example, NAFTA states that international standards are the minimum standard of all signatories standards.

In addition, this is a blatant attempt by the legislature to begin to whittle away at the Court's discretion.

The argument that the court is violating the will of the people ignores the possibility that the majority may act in an unconstitutional manner. Segregation is a prime example. A majority of Southerners agreed with segregation, yet that action was clearly unconstitutional as the Supreme Court noted in Brown v Board of Education.

[Ed Current]

Democracy by Decree | by Ross Sandler and David Schoenbrod

While American neoconservatives use "the war on terror" to impose democracy on the Middle East, two New York Law School professors urge us to rescue democracy here at home. In a newly released book from Yale University Press, "Democracy by Decree," Ross Sandler and David Schoenbrod show how the plaintiff's bar and judges have used consent decrees to take government away from elected officials.

The two law professors know of what they speak. The careers of both as "public interest" attorneys contributed to creating the situation which they now deplore.

Rule by coercive court decree originated with the public school desegregation case, Brown vs. Board of Education. ^{Issues & Views: The <i>Brown v. Board of Education</i> Fraud} Prior to this case, reform relied on persuasion, a balancing of contending interests, and appeals to public opinion. Brown inaugurated a new era of reform coerced by class action lawsuits and judicial decrees.

The result, according to Messrs. Sandler and Schoenbrod, is that law in the U.S. is no longer accountable to the people, because state and local governments have lost both legislative and administrative powers. Schools, welfare agencies, prisons - indeed, practically the entire range of state and local public institutions - are actually controlled by attorneys and judges, not by governors, mayors and the voting public.

Mr. Sandler and Mr. Schoenbrod offer measures that they believe would restore politically accountable law, but American democracy might be too far gone. The will to fight has departed from legislative bodies, and the American people are distracted and uninformed. Legislators, mayors and governors have learned they can avoid making political enemies by letting judges decide divisive issues.

---

1. There is not a single judicial precedent in the entire Brown opinion.
2. The Brown opinion was based on the political pressures of the day, not on universal principles like the Rule of Law, Natural Law, morality, equality, justice, truth.
3. The Brown opinion was based on the false social science of racial relativism (all people are equal no matter what they do) and radical liberalism (separation of morality from public policy). The Court even cited what later proved to be the flawed scientific research of Dr. Kenneth Clark and Dr. Mamie Phipps Clark, the famous sociologist team that studied at Howard and received their Ph.D's from Columbia University. Their studies centered on color and how black children favored white dolls as the prettiest as evidence of self-hatred in the black community due to America's history of racial segregation in society. Their research on color and dolls was critical in persuading the Court to adopt the then radical public policy remedy of racial integration of the public schools in America.
4. The Brown opinion was founded on purely Positive Law grounds (secular, man-made law) rather than on Natural Law (morality/legality integrated out of the Judeo-Christian tradition) or on constitutional grounds (particularly the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause, 14th Amendment Privileges and Immunities and Equal Protection Clauses).
5. The Court refused to utilize any of the arguments the Abolitionists had used for over a century because their ideas were based on morality and affirmed the dignity of all God's creation–including black people. The Court thought that the Abolitionist's reasoning about black people being equal to white people on Natural Law, moral, religious or humanitarian grounds as fanatical, provincial and unsophisticated.
6. The Court used humanistic and New Age language, like this: segregation in education must end in America because to keep segregated schools based on race would "hurt the feelings" of "Negroes" and their "self-esteem" and "educational success" would be hindered. In one telling passage the Court quoted from the researcher's brief which was included in the arguments the NAACP presented to the Court: "To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. . ."

[Ed Current]

I don't buy the "collective right" argument. There's no way anyone can argue that "the People" means the People in every amendment except the Second Amendment.

Besides, what part of shall not be infringed don't these jackwits understand?

You may have misunderstood:

You have the INDIVIDUAL right to possess and bear arms.

You have the COLLECTIVE right to join others under the leadership of lower ranking government officials to revolt.

You don't have a right to assassinate any government official on your own.

Hot Topics - visionforum.org Black's Law Dictionary: Interposition

"The doctrine that a state, in the exercise of its sovereignty, may reject a mandate of the federal government deemed to be unconstitutional or to exceed the powers delegated to the federal government.

The concept is based on the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States reserving to the states powers not delegated to the United States. Historically, the doctrine emanated from Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dallas 419, wherein the state of Georgia, when sued in the Supreme Court by a private citizen of another state, entered a remonstrance and declined to recognize the court's jurisdiction. Amendment 11 validated Georgia's position.

Implementation of the doctrine may be peaceable, as by resolution, remonstrance or legislation, or may proceed ultimately to nullification with forcible resistance."

[Bonddad]

You are correct in stating there is no precedent sited in the case. Thurgood Marshall based his entire argument on the Equal Protection Claus of the 14th Amendment.

"The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not "equal" and cannot be made "equal", and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws"

This was a new application of a clause that already existed
in the Constitution, but was not used by lawyers because of the Court's decision in the Slaughterhouse cases. Therefore, there is a constitutional dimension to the decision.

The court relied on more information than the Clarks. They rellied on Witmer and Kotinsky, Deutscer and Chein, Bramfield, Frazier and Myrdial, as well as several other authors.

While you quote the first part of a paragraph, you fail to mention "Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has the tendency to retard the educational and mental development of the Negro children."
This is central and is true. Place yourself in a black persons position in the rural south in the 1950s. The law tells you you are not equal. At some time you will believe that.
Radical liberalism (separation of morality from public policy). Using this definition, your argument implies that legally enfranchising equality is immoral.

You state the decision is not based on "Natural Law" arising from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Actually, treatment of all people in the same manner is an inherent element of the New Testament -- "Love Your Neighbor as Yourself". This comes directly from the Judeo-Christian Tradition.
The fact that the court went with social science over religion is indicative of the time. There was a greater reliance on science and statistics, as there is today.

[R. Scott]

I guess we can dream.

[OldSgt.]

Ok, Man is man, but what on God's green earth can we the people ever do to ensure the criminals that are running this mess stop being themselves. Is the answer, Nothing???
and don't tell me just to vote them out.

[Ed Current]

Thurgood Marshall based his entire argument on the Equal Protection Claus of the 14th Amendment.

Lino A. Graglia, A. Dalton Cross professor of the University of Texas School of Law:

"....Hope once lay in the making of new appointments, but the failure of ten consecutive appointments by four Republican Presidents to change the direction established by the Warren Court has shown this hope, too, to be unreliable. Rule by judges can certainly be solved by abolishing judicial review, but the real problem resides less in judicial review as such than in the Court's reading of the Fourteenth Amendment as a text without any definite meaning. That problem could be solved either by returning the Fourteenth Amendment to its original meaning or by giving it any definite meaning, thus making it a judicially enforceable rule." ^{The Committee for Justice}

 

For the history and thorough refutation of the Incorporation Doctrine, see the following: The Ten Commandments and the Ten Amendments: A Case Study in Religious Freedom in Alabama, 49 Ala. L. Rev.434-754 (1998)., Jaffree v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County (1983), Rehnquist's Dissent in Wallace v Jaffree (1985) ,Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Second Edition, Raoul Berger, Forrest McDonald , Liberty Fund, Inc.; 2nd edition (June 1997), The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights; The Incorporation Theory, Charles Fairman, Stanley Morrison, Leonard Williams Levy, Da Capo Press , January 1970

[LinnieBeth]

Courts wont listen until the Congress uses it's oversight authority and either starts impeaching rouge Justices or using the budgetary whip to rein in courts.

Amen, now if we can just get the our legislatures to crack down. How can we do that?

[Bonddad]

Your reply implies to me a sense of desperation regarding the current situation. I personally don't see that. For example, I hear a some people mention that politicians are in special interest's pockets. They have always been in this position. Politicians were beholden to the railroads in the late 1800s, the utilities in the 1930s etc.... In effect, nothing has fundamentally changed except the players.

I am guessing you are referring to the idea of "judicial activism" in the courts, especially in issues like abortion and gay marriage. Personally, I agree with both of those decisions. Regarding abortion, the history of Supreme Court precedents clearly indicates reproduction autonomy is a substantive due process right. Regarding gay marriage, not letting a group of people fully utilize certain legal avenues is a violation of equal protection. You may not like it, but I think it's a correct legal decision.

[Ed Current]

1. The Liberty Committee
2. United States Representative John N. Hostettler, Eighth District 8th District of Indiana

[Ed Current]

Regarding abortion, the history of Supreme Court precedents clearly indicates reproduction autonomy is a substantive due process right.

Rehnquist, "Roe V. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)," "To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.

There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter." ^{http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113}

[Ed Current]

Link fix JUDICIAL TYRANTS SHOULD BE IMPEACHED

Judge Robert Bork warned that lawless Courts are "engaged in civil disobedience, a disobedience arguably more dangerous, because more insidious and hence more damaging to democratic institutions, than the civil disobedience of the streets." The Battle of Bunker Hill was not fought and the Founders did not pledge their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor" to empower federal judges to twist, as Jefferson said, the Constitution into any form they please. If constitutional liberties are to be restored and republican government preserved, Congress must utilize its constitutional impeachment power.

(Bill Graves is a lawyer and a member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives.)