HEARING ON H. RES. 97, EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA- The Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution The Honorable Tom Feeney, a Representative in Congress from the State MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD Prepared Statement of the Honorable Tom Feeney, a Representative in Con- 57 HOUSE RESOLUTION ON THE APPROPRIATE ROLE OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:05 p.m., in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Steve Chabot (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding. Mr. CHABOT. The Committee will come to order. Good afternoon. I would like to thank everyone for coming. This is the Subcommittee on the Constitution's hearing on H. Res. 97. Today we are examining the appropriate role of foreign judgments in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. This hearing is important for a number of reasons, but, most importantly, to make clear from this Subcommittee's perspective that the Supreme Court's reliance, or any court's dependence for that matter, on foreign judgments in the interpretation of our Constitution has no place. I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Mr. Feeney, for his continued work on H. Res. 97. We have a distinguished panel before us today, and I look forward to their testimony before this panel. I know that you all have busy schedules, and I know that Members of this Subcommittee join me in thanking you for taking the time to share your expertise. This hearing is timely as our attention is turned to the activities unfolding across the street. As the nomination process moves forward, I am reminded of article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof. . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives . . . and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." Article VI and the oath that we all, including judicial officers, take as representatives of our Federal system of government, binds us to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. Unfortunately, over the last several years, we have witnessed a trend, a dangerous trend, I believe, in which the judiciary has strayed from its oath and duty to uphold the meaning of the Constitution. By looking to and relying on the decisions of foreign courts in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, the judiciary not only is undermining the vision of our Founding Fathers but is chipping away at the core principles on which this country was founded, chipping away at our Nation's sovereignty and independence. When our country declared its independence from Britain, the Founders were very aware and concerned that King George had "combined to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws." and, in drafting the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist No. 78 that "It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure, or anyone else's, to the constitutional intentions of the legislature," making clear in the Constitution that there is no place for the use of Federal opinion. Despite our history, the vision of our Founding Fathers, and the clear mandates set forth in the Constitution, the judiciary has continued to rely, I think, and value foreign opinion in the interpretation of the United States Constitution. This past March 24, the Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons cited the practice of other countries in striking down the death penalty, concluding that "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty." in looking to the international consensus, Justice Kennedy clearly neglected to look to the consensus citizens of the 20 States that continued to allow the practice until March. This is not an isolated case. In 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Court cited a decision by the European Court of Human Rights as a lack of world consensus on the illegality of such conduct. In 2002, in Adkins v. Virginia, the Court referenced the views of the European Union's brief filed with the Court in a footnote to its decision to find death sentences for mentally retarded individuals unconstitutional. Our country has evolved to where there is enough precedent and enough corpus juris which a court can use to interpret and determine whether the laws of Congress or of the several States are permissible under the confines of our Constitution. Furthermore, our Constitution is clear as to its supremacy and to the role of the judiciary in upholding this constitutional tenet. Americans deserve certainty, most of all, from the principles on which this country was founded. They deserve to know the meaning of our Constitution as intended by our legislatures under our body of law, not as intended by the world. H. Res. 97 is necessary now more than ever to remind the Court and all representatives, elected and appointed, who took an oath to uphold their obligation, both to the Constitution, and to the American people. I look forward to hearing from our panel of witnesses on this issue this afternoon and on H. Res. 97. And at this time, I will yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, the Ranking Member of this Committee for the purpose of making an opening statement. |