[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[House]
[Page 6755]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         PROPOSED CHANGE TO AMENDMENT VIII OF THE CONSTITUTION

  (Ms. CARSON of Indiana asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Law Day 2001, I 
introduced House Joint Resolution 46 to change the wording of 
constitutional amendment VIII.
  Last week, the United States Supreme Court decided a case known as 
Atwater v. The City of Lago Vista. In doing so, they shocked the Nation 
and those everywhere who believe in rational and traditional limits on 
the power and reach of government to deal with the people. They 
concluded that police may arrest and jail people for offenses for which 
no incarceration may be imposed in upholding the arrest of a mother, in 
front of her children and her detention until she could arrange to post 
bail because she was not using her seatbelt.
  We used to joke about being arrested for spitting on the sidewalk; 
now we have life imitating art. Why must common sense be so uncommon in 
seats of high authority? Why should common sense be so uncommon in the 
United States?
  I do not author constitutional amendments lightly. Restraint is 
fundamental to the Constitution's survival. But drastic threats to 
freedom sometimes require drastic measures. This is the only way to 
overrule the incredibly bad judgment of the majority of Justices on the 
U.S. Supreme Court. The court's minority is to be commended. They are 
freedom-loving patriots.
  Police States are not the United States. It is time to act. This is 
the language of the amendment, that says that ``excessive bail shall 
not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual 
punishments,'' and I propose to add the language, ``including 
incarceration, before or after trial, for minor offenses not punishable 
by incarceration,'' then ending with the word ``inflicted.''
  I would respectfully ask my colleagues to draw together to support 
this vital change in the most basic law to better protect all who share 
our most precious values of freedom, better weaving that value into the 
fabric of our law.

                          ____________________

                              {time}  1100