[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 3516]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             WE THE PEOPLE

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, March 8, 2011

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The 
We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, 
from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and polices relating to 
religious liberties or ``privacy,'' including cases involving sexual 
practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act 
also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial 
activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal 
protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal judges 
accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a 
judge who violates the act's limitations on judicial power shall either 
be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according to 
rules established by the Congress.
  The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to 
establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and 
limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended 
Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the 
federal judiciary.
  Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down state 
laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim 
overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is 
decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to 
liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully 
limits the power of the federal government over the states.
  In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by federal 
courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on 
subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family 
relations, education, and abortion. This government by federal 
judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment's 
limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose 
their preferred polices on state and local governments, instead of 
respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus 
accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. 
Article IV, section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees each 
state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the 
executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of 
the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop 
federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The 
Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign 
in federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can't place 
manger scenes at Christmas.
  Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have 
admitted that the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which 
overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The 
Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn 
criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, 
attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion 
and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase 
social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial 
social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for 
the right of state and local governments to adopt polices that reflect 
the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my 
colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional 
system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of 
Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage 
and school prayer.
  Unless Congress acts, a state's authority to define and regulate 
marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a 
decision would simply take the Supreme Court's decision in the Lawrence 
case, which overturned all state sodomy laws, to its logical 
conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any 
further federal usurpation of the states' authority to regulate 
marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from 
the jurisdiction of federal courts.
  Although marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, 
government did not create the institution of marriage. Government 
regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices 
and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil 
institutions, such as churches and synagogues. Having federal 
officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new 
definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering 
profoundly hostile to liberty.
  It is long past time that Congress exercises its authority to protect 
the republican government of the states from out-of-control federal 
judges. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the We the People 
Act.

                          ____________________