IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION 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 ̃O, 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.
2

•HRES 97 IH 

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
3

•HRES 97 IH 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that judicial interpretations regarding the 

3 meaning of the Constitution of the United States should 

4 not be based in whole or in part on judgments, laws, or 

5 pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such foreign 

6 judgments, laws, or pronouncements inform an under7 standing of the original meaning of the Constitution of 

8 the United States.

Æ