[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 36 (Monday, April 4, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3124-S3128]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DRIVER'S LICENSES
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would now like to speak for 4 or 5
minutes on another subject. I again thank the Senator from Texas. This
is a subject that I recently wrote an op-ed about, which was published
last week in the Washington Post. Fearing that many of my colleagues
might have been in places such as Texas or Tennessee or Iraq and might
have missed
[[Page S3125]]
it, I will make virtually the same remarks here.
Specifically, I am concerned about the so-called ``Real ID Act,'' a
bill recently passed by the House of Representatives that would require
States to turn 190 million driver's licenses into national
identification cards, with State taxpayers, I am afraid, paying most of
the costs.
The first thing wrong here is that some House Members want to stick
that identification card proposal on the appropriations bill that
supports troops in Iraq. We should not slow down money for our troops
while we debate identification cards.
The second problem is that States not only get to create these
identification cards, States will likely end up paying the bill. This
is one more of the unfunded Federal mandates that we Republicans
especially promised to stop.
Supporters argue this is no mandate because States have a choice.
Well, true. States may refuse to conform to the proposed Federal
standards and issue licenses to whomever they choose, including illegal
immigrants. But, if they do, States' licenses will not be accepted for
``Federal purposes,'' such as boarding an airplane. That is some
choice. What Governor will deny his or her citizens the identification
they need to travel by air or to cash Social Security checks or for
``other Federal purposes?''
Of course, this identification card idea might backfire on us, the
Members of Congress. Some feisty Governor might ask: Who are these
people in Washington telling us what to do with our driver's licenses
and making us pay for them, too?
A Governor, let us say from California, might say: California will
use its licenses for certifying drivers, and Congress can create its
own identification cards for people who want to fly and do other
federally regulated things. And, if they do not, I will put on the
Internet the home telephone numbers of all the Congressmen.
That is what some feisty Governor might say.
If just one State refuses to do the Federal Government identification
work, Congress would be forced to create what it claims to oppose, a
Federal identification card for citizens of that State.
Finally, if we must have a better identification card for some
Federal purposes, there may be better ideas than turning State driver's
license examiners into CIA agents. For example, Congress might create
an airline traveler's card, or there could be an expanded-use U.S.
passport. Since a motive here is to discourage illegal immigration,
probably the most logical idea is to upgrade the Social Security card,
which directly relates to the reason most immigrants come to the United
States, to work.
I have fought government identification cards as long and as hard as
anyone in this Chamber. In 1983, when I was Governor of Tennessee, our
Tennessee Legislature voted to put photographs on driver's licenses.
Merchants and policemen wanted a State identification card to
discourage check fraud and teenage drinking. I vetoed this photo
driver's license bill twice because I believed driver's licenses should
be about driving and that State identification cards infringed on civil
liberties.
That same year, 1983, I visited the White House on the annual visit
that Governors have with the President of the United States. As I got
to the gate, a White House guard asked for my photo identification.
I said to the guard: We don't have photo driver's licenses in
Tennessee. I vetoed them.
The guard said: Well, you can't get in without one.
Fortunately, the Governor of Georgia, the late George Busbee, was
standing there next to me. He had his Georgia photo driver's license.
He vouched for me. I was admitted to the White House.
The legislature at home overrode my veto, and I gave up my fight
against the State identification card. For years, the State driver's
licenses have served as a de facto national identification card. But
they have been unreliable. All but one of the 9/11 terrorists had valid
driver's licenses.
Even today, when I board an airplane, as I did this morning, security
officials look at the front of my driver's license, which expired in
2000, and rarely turn it over to verify that it has been extended until
2005.
My point is, we already have a national identification card. They are
called driver's licenses. They are just ineffective.
I still detest the idea of a government identification card. South
Africa's experience is a grim reminder of how such documents can be
abused.
But I am afraid this is one of the ways 9/11 has changed our lives.
Instead of pretending that we are not creating national identification
cards, when we obviously are, I believe Congress should carefully
create an effective Federal document that helps prevent terrorism with
as much respect for privacy as possible.
I thank the Senator from Texas for his courtesy. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
FEDERAL COURTS
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wanted to talk a little bit about our
courts, and specifically our Federal courts, and even more specifically
the United States Supreme Court.
Before I start, let me just say I have the greatest respect for our
judiciary, the men and women who wear black robes--whether it is on a
municipal court or a county court or a district court like I served on
in San Antonio, Bexar County, TX, for 6 years, or those who work on
appellate courts, whether State or Federal, like I did on the Texas
Supreme Court for 7 years.
For 13 years of my professional life, I have worn a black robe,
judging cases, first presiding over the jury trials, and coming to have
a great deal of respect not just for those judges but for men and women
who serve on juries and decide hard cases, cases which, perhaps, they
would prefer not have to sit in judgment of, some involving even the
death penalty.
I don't want anyone to misunderstood what I say as being a blanket
criticism of either the judiciary or the U.S. Supreme Court, in
particular. From my own experience, judges, although they have
important jobs to do, are no different than you and I. They are mere
mortals, subject to the same flashes of mediocrity, sometimes making
mistakes, and sometimes displaying flights of brilliance. These are
not, as some people have suggested, high priests able to discern great
truths that you and I are unable to figure out. They are generally very
intelligent, with outstanding educational pedigrees, but no one has
agreed that judges, particularly Federal judges, can be or should be a
law unto themselves.
Federal judges are appointed subject to advice and consent provisions
of the Constitution for a lifetime. They do not run for election. They
do not have to raise money as do other politicians. I know those who do
envy them that. But the idea is they are supposed to use that
independence in order to be impartial umpires of the law--it is called
balls and strikes--and they should use that independence that has been
given to them in order to resist politics, in order to resist those who
would suggest that in order to be popular you must subscribe to a
particular way of thinking or a particular social or political or
ideological agenda.
Given that framework the Founding Fathers agreed was so important and
that I know we all agree is important today to preserve that
independence so as to preserve that judicial function, it causes a lot
of people, including me, great distress to see judges use the authority
they have been given to make raw political or ideological decisions. No
one, including those judges, including the judges on the U.S. Supreme
Court, should be surprised if one of us stands up and objects.
I make clear I object to some of the decisionmaking process occurring
at the U.S. Supreme Court today and now. So far as the Supreme Court
has taken on this role as a policymaker rather than an enforcer of
political decisions made by elected representatives of the people, it
has led to increasing divisiveness and bitterness of our confirmation
fights that is a very current problem this body faces. It has generated
a lack of respect for judges generally. Why should people respect a
judge for making a policy decision born out of an ideological
conviction any more than they would respect or deny
[[Page S3126]]
themselves the opportunity to disagree if that decision were made by an
elected representative? The difference is they can throw the rascal out
and we are sometimes perceived as the rascal if they do not like the
decisions made, but they cannot vote against a judge, because judges
are not elected. They serve for a lifetime on the Federal bench.
The increasing politicization of the judicial decisionmaking process
at the highest levels of our judiciary has bred a lack of respect for
some of the people who wear the robe. That is a national tragedy.
Finally, I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but
we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this
country--certainly nothing new; we seem to have run through a spate of
courthouse violence recently that has been on the news. I
wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in
some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political
decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds and
builds to the point where some people engage in violence, certainly
without any justification, but that is a concern I have that I wanted
to share.
We all are students of history in this Senate, we all have been
elected to other bodies and other offices, and we are all familiar with
the founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, the
Constitution itself. We are familiar with the Federalist Papers that
were written in an effort to get the Constitution ratified in New York
State. Alexander Hamilton, apropos of what I will talk about, authored
a series of essays in the Federalist Papers that opine that the
judicial branch would be what he called the ``least dangerous branch of
government.'' He pointed out that the judiciary lacked the power of the
executive branch, the White House, for example, in the Federal
Government and the political passions of the legislature. In other
words, the Congress. Its sole purpose--that is, the Federal judiciary's
sole purpose--was to objectively interpret and apply the laws of the
land and in such a role its job would be limited.
Let me explain perhaps in greater detail why I take my colleagues'
time to criticize some of the decisionmaking being made by some Federal
courts in some cases. This is not a blanket condemnation. I hope I have
made it clear I respect the men and women who wear the robe, but having
been a judge myself I can state that part of the job of a judge is to
criticize the reasoning and the justification for a particular
judgment. I certainly did that daily as a state supreme court justice.
And I might add that people felt free to criticize my decisions, my
reasoning and justification for the judgments I would render. That is
part of the give and take that goes into this. I make clear my respect
generally for the Federal judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
I am troubled when I read decisions such as Roper v. Simmons. This is
a recent decision from March 1, 2005. Let me state what that case was
about. This was a case involving Christopher Simmons. Christopher
Simmons was seven months shy of his 18th birthday when he murdered
Shirley Crook. This is a murder he planned to commit. Before committing
the crime, this 17-year-old who was 7 months shy of his 18th birthday,
encouraged his friends to join him, assuring them that they could ``get
away with it,'' because they were minors. Christopher Simmons and his
cohorts broke into the home of an innocent woman, bound her with duct
tape and electrical wire, and then threw her off a bridge, alive and
conscious, resulting in her subsequent death.
Those facts led a jury in Missouri, using the law in Missouri that
the people of Missouri had chosen for themselves through their elected
representatives, to convict him of capital murder and to sentence him
to death.
Well, this 17-year-old boy, or young man I guess is what I would call
him, Christopher Simmons, challenged that jury verdict and that
conviction all the way through the State courts of Missouri and all the
way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And the United States Supreme Court, on
March 1, 2005, held that Christopher Simmons or any other person in the
United States of America who is under the age of 18 who commits such a
heinous and premeditated and calculated murder cannot be given the
death penalty because it violates the U.S. Constitution.
In so holding, the U.S. Supreme Court said: We are no longer going to
leave this in the hands of jurors. We do not trust jurors. We are no
longer going to leave this up to the elected representatives of the
people of the respective States, even though 20 States, including
Missouri, have the possibility at least of the death penalty being
assessed in the most aggravated types of cases, involving the most
heinous crimes, against someone who is not yet 18.
This is how the Court decided to do that. First, it might be of
interest to my colleagues that 15 years earlier the same U.S. Supreme
Court, sitting in Washington, across the street from this Capitol where
we are standing today, held just the opposite. Fifteen years ago, the
U.S. Supreme Court held that under appropriate circumstances, given the
proper safeguards, in the worst cases involving the most depraved and
premeditated conduct, a jury could constitutionally convict someone of
capital murder and sentence them to the death penalty. But 15 years
later, on March 1, they said what was constitutional the day before was
no longer constitutional, wiping 20 States' laws off the books and
reversing this death penalty conviction for Christopher Simmons.
What I want to focus on now is the reasoning that Justice Anthony
Kennedy, writing for the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, used
to reach that conclusion.
First, Justice Kennedy adopted a test for determining whether this
death penalty conviction was constitutional. This ought to give you
some indication of the problems we have with the Supreme Court as a
policymaker with no fixed standards or objective standards by which to
determine its decisions to make its judgments. The Court embraced a
test that it had adopted earlier referring to the ``evolving standards
of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.'' Let me
repeat that. The test they used was the ``evolving standards of decency
that mark the progress of a maturing society.''
I would think any person of reasonable intelligence, listening to
what I am saying, would say: What was that? How do you determine those
``evolving standards''? And if they are one way on one day, how do they
evolve to be something different the next day? And what is a ``maturing
society''? How do we determine whether society has matured? I think
people would be justified in asking: Isn't that fancy window dressing
for a preordained conclusion? I will let them decide.
Well, it does not get much better because then the Court, in order to
determine whether the facts met that standard, such as that this death
penalty could not stand, or these laws in 20 States cannot stand,
looked to what they called an ``emerging consensus.'' Well, any student
of high school civics knows we have a Federal system, and the national
Government does not dictate to the State governments all aspects of
criminal law. In fact, most criminal law is decided in State courts in
the first place.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5-to-4
decision, looked for an ``emerging consensus'' and in the process wiped
20 States' laws off the books. I will not go into the details of how
they found a consensus, but suffice it to say it ought to be that in a
nation comprised of 50 separate sovereign State governments, where 20
States disagree with the Court on its decision that wipes those 20
States' courts laws off the books, it can hardly be called a consensus,
if language is to have any meaning.
Secondly, the Court said: We will also look to our own decisions, our
own judgment over the propriety of this law. In other words, they are
going to decide because they can, because basically their decisions are
not appealable, and there is nowhere else to go if they decide this law
is unconstitutional. The American people, the people of Missouri, the
people who support, under limited circumstances, under appropriate
checks and balances, the death penalty for people who commit heinous
crimes under the age of 18 are simply out of luck; this is the end of
the line.
Well, finally--and this is the part I want to conclude on and speak
on for a
[[Page S3127]]
few minutes--the Court demonstrated a disconcerting tendency to rely on
the laws of foreign governments and even treaties in the application
and enforcement of U.S. law. This is a trend that did not start with
the Roper case, but I did want to mention it in that connection.
But if the U.S. Supreme Court is not going to look to the laws of the
United States, including the fundamental law of the United States,
which is the Constitution, but interpreting what is and is not
constitutional under the U.S. Constitution by looking at what foreign
governments and foreign laws have to say about that same issue, I fear
that bit by bit and case by case the American people are slowly losing
control over the meaning of our laws and the Constitution itself. If
this trend continues, foreign governments may have a say in what our
laws and our Constitution mean and what our policies in America should
be.
Let me digress a second to say this is as current as the daily news.
As a matter of fact, I saw in the New York Times on April 2 an article
concerning Justice Ginsburg, a member of that five-member majority in
the Roper case. The headline is: ``Justice Ginsburg Backs Value of
Foreign Law.'' Reading from this story, written by Anne Kornblut, it
says:
In her speech, Justice Ginsburg criticized the resolutions
in Congress and the spirit in which they were written.
She is referring to a resolution I have filed, and I sent out a
``dear colleague'' today expressing concerns about this issue. But she
said:
Although I doubt the resolutions will pass this Congress--
I don't know where she gets her information. I think there is a lot
of positive sentiment in favor of what the resolution says, and I will
talk about that in a minute.
Although I doubt the resolutions will pass this Congress,
it is disquieting that they have attracted sizable support.
I am a little surprised that a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice
would engage in a debate about a current matter, which has yet to be
decided by the Senate, which is a resolution expressing concern about
the use of foreign laws and treaties to interpret what the U.S.
Constitution should mean. I am a little surprised by it.
In a series of cases over the past few years our courts have begun to
tell us that our criminal laws and our criminal policies are informed
not just by our Constitution and by the policy preferences and
legislative enactments of the American people through their elected
representatives, but also by the rulings of foreign courts. I
understand it is hard to believe, and most people listening to what I
am saying are asking themselves: Could this be true? Is it possible? I
know it is hard to believe, but in a series of recent cases, including
the Roper case, the U.S. Supreme Court has actually rejected its own
prior decisions in part because a foreign government or court has
expressed disagreement with the conclusion they had reached.
Until recently the U.S. Supreme Court had long held that under
appropriate safeguards and procedures, the death penalty may be imposed
by the States regardless of the IQ of the perpetrator. The Court had
traditionally left this issue untouched as a matter for the American
people and each of their States to decide, as the Court said in a case
called Penry V. Lynaugh in 1989. Yet because some foreign governments
had frowned upon that ruling, the U.S. has now seen fit to take that
issue away from the American people entirely. In 2002, in a case called
Atkins v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Commonwealth
of Virginia could no longer apply its criminal justice system and its
death penalty to an individual who had been duly convicted of
abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder because of the testimony
that the defendant was mildly mentally retarded. The reason given for
this reversal of the Court's position that it had taken in 1989 to
2002? In part it was because the Court was concerned about ``the world
community'' and the views of the European Union.
Take another example. The U.S. Supreme Court had long held that the
American people in each of the States have the discretion to decide
what kinds of conduct that have long been considered immoral under
longstanding legal traditions should or should not remain illegal. In
Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986, the Court held that it is up to the
American people to decide whether criminal laws against sodomy should
be continued or abandoned. Yet once again because foreign governments
have frowned upon that ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court saw fit in 2003,
in Lawrence v. Texas, to hold that no State's criminal justice system
or its criminal justice laws could be written in a way to reflect the
moral convictions and judgments of their people.
The reason given for this reversal from 1986 to 2002? This time the
Court explained that it was concerned about the European Court of Human
Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.
I have already mentioned the case of Roper v. Simmons. But most
recently, on March 28, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a
case that will consider whether foreign nationals duly convicted of the
most heinous crimes will nevertheless be entitled to a new trial for
reasons that those individuals did not even bother to bring up during
their trial. As in the previous examples, the Supreme Court has already
answered this issue but decided to revisit it once again. In 1998, in
Breard v. Green, the Court made clear that criminal defendants, like
all parties in lawsuits, may not sit on their rights and must bring
them up at the time the case is going on or be prohibited from raising
those issues later on, perhaps even years later. That is a basic
principle of our legal system. In this case, the Court has decided to
revisit whether an accused who happens to be a foreign national,
subject to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, should be
treated differently from any other litigant in our civil litigation
systems and in State and Federal courts or in the Federal system
reviewing State criminal justice provisions.
Even this basic principle of American law may soon be reversed. Many
legal experts predict that in the upcoming case of Medilline v. Dretke,
the Court may overturn itself again for no other reason than that the
International Court of Justice happens to disagree with our
longstanding laws and legal principles. This particular case involves
the State of Texas. I have filed an amicus brief, a friend of the court
brief, in that decision, asking the Court to allow the people of Texas
to determine their own criminal laws and policies consistent with the
U.S. States Constitution and not subject to the veto of the Vienna
Convention on Consular Rights or the decision of some international
court.
There is a serious risk, however, that the Court will ignore Texas
law, will ignore U.S. law, will reverse itself, and decide in effect
that the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court can be overruled by the
International Court of Justice.
I won't dwell on this any longer, but suffice it to say there are
other examples and other decisions where we see Supreme Court Justices
citing legal opinions from foreign courts across the globe as part of
the justification for their decisions interpreting the U.S.
Constitution. These decisions, these legal opinions from foreign courts
range from countries such as India, Jamaica, Zimbabwe, and the list
goes on and on.
I am concerned about this trend. Step by step, with each case where
this occurs, the American people may be losing their ability to
determine what their laws should be, losing control in part due to the
opinions of foreign courts and foreign governments. If this happens to
criminal law, it can also spread to other areas of our Government and
our sovereignty. How about our economic policy, foreign policy? How
about our decisions about our own security?
Most Americans would be disturbed if we gave foreign governments the
power to tell us what our Constitution means. Our Founding Fathers
fought the Revolutionary War precisely to stop foreign governments--in
this case, Great Britain--from telling us what our laws should be or
what the rules should be by which we would be governed. In fact, ending
foreign control over American law was one of the very reasons given for
our War of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence itself specifically complains that
the American Revolution was justified in
[[Page S3128]]
part because King George ``has combined with others to subject us to a
jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our
laws.''
After a long and bloody revolution, we earned the right at last to be
free of such foreign control. Rather, it was we the people of the
United States who then ordained and established a Constitution of the
United States and our predecessors, our forefathers, specifically
included a mechanism by which we the people of the United States could
change it by amendment, if necessary.
Of course, every judge who serves on a Federal court swears to an
oath to ``faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the
duties incumbent upon me . . . under the Constitution and laws of the
United States, so help me God.''
As you can tell, I am concerned about this trend. I am concerned that
this trend may reflect a growing distrust amongst legal elites--not
only a distrust of our constitutional democracy, but a distrust of the
American people and America itself.
As every high school civics student knows, the job of a judge is
pretty straightforward. Judges are supposed to follow the law, not
rewrite it. Judges are supposed to enforce and apply political
decisions that are made in Congress and that are signed into law by the
President of the United States. Judges are not supposed to make those
decisions or substitute their own judgments or those political
judgments hashed out in the legislative process in this body and this
Capitol. The job of a judge is to read and obey the words contained in
our laws and in our judicial precedents--not the laws and precedents of
foreign governments, which have no authority over our Nation or the
American people.
I am concerned that some judges who simply don't like our laws--and
they don't like the decisions made by Americans through their elected
representatives here about what those laws should be--are using this as
another way to justify their decision to overreach. So it appears they
would rather rewrite the law from the bench. What is especially
disconcerting is that some judges today may be departing so far from
American law, from American principles, and from American traditions
that the only way they can justify their rulings is to cite the law of
foreign countries, foreign governments, and foreign cultures, because
there is nothing left for them to cite for support in this country.
Citing foreign law in order to overrule U.S. policy offends our
democracy because foreign lawmaking is obviously in no way accountable
to the American people. Here again--and I started out by saying I am
not condemning all Federal judges; I have great respect for the Federal
judiciary--I am not condemning international law. Obviously, there is a
way by which international law can apply to the United States, and that
is through the treaty process, which is, of course, subject to
ratification by the U.S. Congress.
There is an important role for international law in our system, but
it is a role that belongs to the American people through the political
branches--the Congress and the President--to decide what that role
should be and indeed what that law should be; it is not a role given to
our courts. Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives the Congress, not
the courts, the authority to enact laws punishing ``Offenses against
the Law of Nations,'' and article II of the Constitution gives the
President the power to ratify treaties, subject to the advice and
consent and the approval of two-thirds of the Senate. Yet our courts
appear to be, in some instances, overruling U.S. law by citing foreign
law decisions in which the U.S. Congress had no role and citing
treaties that the President and the U.S. Senate have refused to
approve.
To those who might say there is nothing wrong with simply trying to
bring U.S. laws into consistency with other nations, I say this: This
is not a good faith attempt to bring U.S. law into global harmony. I
fear that, in some instances, it is simply an effort to further a
political or ideological agenda, because the record suggests that this
sudden interest in foreign law is more ideological than legal; it seems
selective, not principled.
U.S. courts are following foreign law, it seems, inconsistently--only
when needed to achieve a particular outcome that a judge or justice
happens to desire but that is flatly inconsistent with U.S. law and
precedent. Many countries, for example, have no exclusionary rule to
suppress evidence that is otherwise useful and necessary in a criminal
case. Yet our courts have not abandoned the exclusionary rule in the
United States, relying upon the greater wisdom and insight of foreign
courts and foreign nations. I might add that very few countries provide
abortion on demand. Yet our courts have not abandoned our Nation's
constitutional jurisprudence on that subject. Four Justices of the
Supreme Court believe that school choice programs that benefit poor
urban communities are unconstitutional if parochial schools are
eligible, even though other countries directly fund religious schools.
Even more disconcerting than the distrust of our constitutional
democracy is the distrust of America itself. I would hope that no
American--and certainly no judge--would ever believe that the citizens
of foreign countries are always right and that America is always wrong.
Yet I worry that some judges become more and more interested in
impressing their peers in foreign judiciaries and foreign governments
and less interested in simply following the U.S. Constitution and
American laws. At least one U.S. Supreme Court Justice mentioned
publicly--and Justice Ginsburg's comments were reported on April 2 in
the New York Times. A Justice has stated that following foreign rulings
rather than U.S. rulings ``may create that all important good
impression,'' and therefore, ``over time, we will rely increasingly . .
. on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues.''
Well, let me conclude by saying I find disturbing this attitude and
these expressions of support for foreign laws and treaties that we have
not ratified, particularly when they are used to interpret what the
U.S. Constitution means. The brave men and women of our Armed Forces
are putting their lives on the line in order to champion freedom and
democracy, not just for the American people but for people all around
the world. America today is the world's leading champion of freedom and
democracy. I raise this issue, and I have filed a resolution for the
consideration of my colleagues on this issue. I speak about it today at
some length because I believe this is an important matter for the
American people to know about and to have a chance to speak out on.
I believe the American people--certainly the people in Texas--do not
want their courts to make political decisions. They want their courts
to follow and apply the law as written. I believe the American people
do not want their courts to follow the precedents of foreign courts.
They want their courts to follow U.S. laws and U.S. precedents. The
American people do not want their laws controlled by foreign
governments. They want their laws controlled by the American
Government, which serves the American people. The American people do
not want to see American law and American policy outsourced to foreign
governments and foreign courts.
So I have submitted a resolution to give this body the opportunity to
state for the record that this trend in our courts is wrong and that
American law should never be reversed or rejected simply because a
foreign government or a foreign court may disagree with it. This
resolution is nearly identical to one that has been introduced by my
colleague in the House, Congressman Tom Feeney. I applaud his
leadership and efforts in this area, and I hope both the House and
Senate will come together and follow the footsteps of our Founding
Fathers, to once again defend our rights as Americans to dictate the
policies of our Government--informed but never dictated by the
preferences of any foreign government or tribunal.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
____________________