[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 117 (Wednesday, July 16, 2008)]
[House]
[Page H6650]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      ASSAULT ON THE CONSTITUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court Justices decide cases based 
upon the cold written record of proceedings at the trial court. Eight 
of our nine Justices have never tried a case before a jury. Only one 
has in some very limited way. For the most part, they have been 
isolated from the real world all of their lives. They have dwelt in 
legal theory and constitutional construction, reconstruction and 
constitutional destruction during their entire judicial careers. 
They've not heard a witness testify or a defendant plead his case or 
have had to empanel a jury or have had to listen to little girls 
testify about graphic, brutal sexual assault.
  The Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is not that 
complicated to most Americans, though we keep seeing the Star Chamber 
court of five Justices on the Supreme Court rule the opposite of the 
obvious meaning of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, especially 
recently, makes the Constitution, which is simple, complicated. They do 
so to twist and turn the Constitution to mean what they want it to 
mean.
  At least five Justices follow the doctrine of former Chief Justice 
Charles Evans when he said arrogantly in 1935, ``We are under a 
Constitution, but the Constitution is what [we] the judges say it is.''
  This is especially true in the case of Patrick Kennedy versus 
Louisiana. Here are the facts of that case: Patrick Kennedy sexually 
assaulted his 8-year-old daughter. So brutal was the attack that she 
nearly bled to death. She has had to have reconstructive surgery, and 
her life was only saved by the medical personnel who rescued her. 
Louisiana and a handful of other States have said that the death 
penalty is warranted when a person like Patrick Kennedy rapes little 
kids, especially little girls.
  The Supreme Court, with Justice Kennedy writing the opinion, says 
that that just isn't fair to the criminal in this case. He overruled 
the will of the people of Louisiana, the legislature of Louisiana and 
the unanimous jury, who all found that Patrick Kennedy should be 
executed for his crime. Justice Kennedy reasoned that, since the victim 
lived, the defendant should not get the death penalty. However, there 
is no logic in that argument.
  The victim, certainly, could have died. If medical people hadn't 
saved her life, she would have bled to death. She required 
reconstructive surgery that she will live with for the rest of her 
life. So the defendant gets a break: the right to live because the hand 
of God and the hand of the medical personnel saved the life of the 
victim.
  What Justice Kennedy misses is that Louisiana punishes the act of the 
assault--raping little girls. That's why Louisiana has executed or has 
written the death penalty into its law. Whether the victim lives or 
dies should not be a requirement to face the death penalty in 
Louisiana. The act of child rape alone is dastardly enough to deserve 
the ultimate punishment.
  But, in Justice Kennedy's mind, death must result or it is cruel and 
unusual punishment under the eighth amendment in our Bill of Rights. 
Kennedy says the trend is away from the death penalty for anything but 
murder cases. He is wrong. For these six States that have the death 
penalty for child rape, these statutes are relatively new, and even our 
Code of Military Justice now allows the death penalty for child rape if 
anyone in our military rapes someone on a post or on a base.
  Justice Kennedy also says it's not civilized to execute Patrick 
Kennedy. It's a violation of the eighth amendment. It's just not moral. 
But what is civilized or moral about now sending Patrick Kennedy to 
prison? How is that justice to Kennedy or to the victim to let him 
live?
  Now he will be in prison at taxpayer expense at $40,000 a year. He 
will receive free medical, free Internet. He will have no 
responsibility. He will receive free legal services. He will receive 
three hot meals a day and a place to stay as long as he shall live. Is 
that justice? I think not.
  We don't promise that to anyone. We certainly don't promise that to 
crime victims, because they're basically on their own after a crime is 
committed. Only the worst people among us get that benefit of our 
society, and those are child rapists.
  Justice Kennedy's opinion is his own moral judgment. His opinion is 
not any more valuable than my opinion or my next-door neighbor's 
opinion for that matter. The difference is his opinion is the only one 
that counts under our Constitution. His opinion, as Justice Evans says, 
is the Constitution whether we like it or not.
  Justice Kennedy is wrong. As my friend Alton Richards, a ranch 
foreman, has said, ``Patrick Kennedy is wasting good air breathing.''
  Victims are denied equal protection under the Constitution because 
Justices like Kennedy prefer to pander to child rapists rather than to 
give equal protection to little girls. The same Constitution that 
protects people like Kennedy should protect the rights of child 
victims.

                          ____________________