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.
Call your Congressmen! Support House Resolution 97. which would prohibit the Supreme Court from relying on foreign/international law or "opinion."
If this bill became law would it invalidate past rulings by SCOTUS or any other court that cited foreign law or opinion?
This is a fine sentiment but it's purely for show. It's toothless. It has no force of law.
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....
This is a fine sentiment but it's purely for show. It's toothless. It has no force of law.
=====
This issue needs to get turning INTO LAW. As it stands, the liberal justices will laugh at it.
*** NOW FOR THE WORST NIGHTMARE OF ALL ***
Imagine....
1. Hitlery is in the White House.
2. Billy is head of the U.N.
3. Our Supreme Court is being run by "international opinion" rather than our Constitution and our system of laws.
No, No, NO!!!
The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Cout is subject to such regulations as Congress shall make, Art III, s2.
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.
Of course they can, it's their job. Article III, section 2 makes the Supreme Court subordinate to Congress in that the Court may exercise appellate jurisdiction ONLY subject to such regulations and exceptions as Congress shall make.
The fact that Congress has abdicated its power to regulate the Court does not mean the power does not exist.
That IS a nightmare, no matter what the definition of is is!
Plus, we don't go topless on US beaches and they do in Europe. International opinion would support nude sunbathing.
I agree with you, these jokers need to be held accountable to their oaths.
That actual language of the Constitution is so yesterday. The Court's sense of its own jurisdiction must be shaped by evolving standards of jurisprudence based upon world opinion.
They did the same thing in Massachusetts and homosexual marriage. The people vote no! Too bad, the judges voted yes!
The evolving standards scenario gives me the shakes!
Best House bill I have seen in a while!!!
Do you think Ron Widen (D OR) will go for it? OR Wu (D OR)? I am not holding my breath but I WILL be calling them!
If you are arrested for criticizing the governor of your state, the court should be able to issue a writ of habeas corpus to release you, because a law making criticizing the governor illegal is unconstitutional.
I agree that the power as exercised now is repugnant to the constitution.
Interestingly enough their oath does not require them to "uphold" the constitution, believe it or not.
Their oath however should be modified. It is part of the US Code not the constitution and therefore can be modified by Congress.
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.