Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3313, Marriage Protection Act of 2004
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3313, MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT OF 2004 -- (House of
Representatives - July 22, 2004)
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 734 and ask for its immediate consideration.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard everything here, but citing the Dred Scott decision in support of this amendment is like citing the Ku Klux Klan in support of civil rights legislation. This amendment is a Soviet style attack on American freedom, and the reason requires a little look at history.
The former Soviet Union had a Constitution, like we do. The former Soviet Union had a Bill of Rights, like we do; very similar to our Bill of Rights. But the former Soviet Union had another little trick. Their little trick was that the executive and legislative branches prohibited the judicial system of the former Soviet Union from enforcing their Bill of Rights, and what did they get? Tyranny.
The instructive lesson of the Soviet Union is that we should not go down the path of getting rid of, yes, frustrating, nonunderstandable courts that sometimes do not agree with Congress. But I guess the authors of this amendment feel that they are smarter than Thomas Jefferson and smarter than any court that ever lived.
This is not the only right that is going to be on the chopping block. Once we do away with the independence of the American judicial system, which has never been done in American history, ever; this Chamber has never, ever cut the knees out of the American Bill of Rights in American history, and this is not like the first time we have a controversial issue that may end up in the courts. Civil rights was controversial. Gun rights are controversial. It may be controversial if this Congress passes a gun rights bill like the Brady Bill and then it goes to the U.S. judicial system to see if it is constitutional, that is controversial. But where will this stop?
I may ask the drafters, why did you stop here? Why, if you believe the PATRIOT Act is constitutional, why do you not just do away with the Supreme Court and not let them review that as well?
This is a first step to tyranny. It ought to be rejected.