As I was reading a very nice legislative round by Juila Grey I noticed that in the committee section a bit of the Constitution Restoration Act was trying to come back from the dead in the form of House Resolution 97.
July 19, Subcommittee on the Constitution, hearing on 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, and the Appropriate Role of Foreign Judgements in the Interpretation of American Law, 4 p.m., 2141 Rayburn.
You can read the whole wretched thing by going to Thomas and searching on HRes 97 or clicking this link House Resolution 97. From having read it I was not to spurised but disheartened to see it take a swipe at the Lawerence vs. Texas decision openly and directly.
More after the jump....
The part the decided to resurrect comes from the wingnuts distaste for the Supreme Court's ruling the death penalty can't be used on children because it violates the 8th Admendment according the opinion written by Justice Kennedy. Who when writing it mentioned he used the Internet for research and looked at foriegn legal precedents and so did the others in coming to their decision in the case.
Let me post one of the Whereas clauses from the HRes 97 so I can yet again confirm the kind of insanity that comes from the Republican house.
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);
I just wanted to bring some attention to this issue because you can never keep to close of an eye on the winguts.