IV 
109TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
H. RES. 97
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 
FEBRUARY 15, 2005
Mr. FEENEY (for himself, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. DELAY, Mr. SENSEN-
BRENNER, 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 Ar-
izona, 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 insti-
tutions unless such foreign judgments, laws, or pro-
nouncements inform an understanding of the original 
meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
•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 jurisdic-
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
•HRES 97 IH 
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep-
resentatives 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 under-
standing of the original meaning of the Constitution of 
the United States.
Æ