IV 
111TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
H. RES. 473 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that judicial determina-
tions 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 in-
form an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution of 
the United States. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
MAY 21, 2009 
Mr. GOODLATTE (for himself, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, 
Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. BLUNT, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. CAN-
TOR, Mr. POE of Texas, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. 
MACK, Mr. JONES, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. PITTS, Mr. 
POSEY, Mr. WOLF, Mr. FORBES, and Mr. WITTMAN) submitted the fol-
lowing 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 insti-
tutions unless such foreign judgments, laws, or pro-
nouncements 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 jurisdic-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
04:31 May 22, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR473.IH
HR473
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
•HRES 473 IH 
tion foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by 
our laws’’; 
Whereas the Supreme Court has recently relied on the judg-
ments, 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 inter-
pret the expression of the popular will through the Con-
stitution and laws enacted by duly elected representatives 
of the American people and our system of checks and bal-
ances; 
Whereas Americans should not have to look for guidance on 
how to live their lives from the often contradictory deci-
sions 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 Presi-
dent’s and the Senate’s treaty-making authority: Now, 
therefore, be it 
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep-
resentatives that judicial interpretations regarding the 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
04:31 May 22, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR473.IH
HR473
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
•HRES 473 IH 
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 under-
standing of the original meaning of the Constitution of 
the United States. 
Æ 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
04:31 May 22, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\HR473.IH
HR473
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS