```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 92 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 92

    Expressing the sense of the Senate 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 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 20, 2005

 Mr. Cornyn submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Expressing the sense of the Senate 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 with 
        others 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 Atkins v. Virginia, 536 
        U.S. 304, 316 n.21 (2002), Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 573 (2003), 
        and Roper v. Simmons, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 1198-99 (2005);
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 the ability of Americans 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 under 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 
        pronouncements 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 Senate 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.
                                 <all>
```