Rosenkranz, Nicholas Quinn

English

NELLCO Consortium Legal Scholarship Repository

House Resolution on the Appropriate Role of Foreign Judgements in the Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong., July 19, 2005 (Statement of Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Prof. of Law, Geo. U. L. Center)

Georgetown Law Scholarly Commons

Georgetown University Law CenterScholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW2005House Resolution on the Appropriate Role ofForeign Judgements in the Interpretation of theConstitution of the United States: Hearing Beforethe Subcomm. on the Constitution, H. Comm. onthe Judiciary, 109th Cong., July 19, 2005(Statement of Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Prof. ofLaw, Geo. U. L. Center)Nicholas Quinn RosenkranzGeorgetown University Law Center, nqr@law.georgetown.eduCIS-No.: 2005-H521-48This paper can be downloaded free of charge from:http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cong/20This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author.Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/congPart of the Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, and the International Law CommonsU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICEWASHINGTON : For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfficeInternet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–000122–494 PDF 2005HOUSE RESOLUTION ON THE APPROPRIATE ROLE OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS IN THE INTERPRETA-TION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATESHEARINGBEFORE THESUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTIONOF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESSFIRST SESSIONONH. Res. 97JULY 19, 2005Serial No. 109–40Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary(Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov VerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:54 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 G:\WORK\CONST\071905B\22494.000 HJUD1 PsN: 22494(II)COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina LAMAR SMITH, Texas ELTON GALLEGLY, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee CHRIS CANNON, Utah SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama BOB INGLIS, South Carolina JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana MARK GREEN, Wisconsin RIC KELLER, Florida DARRELL ISSA, California JEFF FLAKE, Arizona MIKE PENCE, Indiana J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE KING, Iowa TOM FEENEY, Florida TRENT FRANKS, Arizona LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan HOWARD L. BERMAN, California RICK BOUCHER, Virginia JERROLD NADLER, New York ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ZOE LOFGREN, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas MAXINE WATERS, California MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts ROBERT WEXLER, Florida ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York ADAM B. SCHIFF, California LINDA T. SA´NCHEZ, California CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, FloridaPHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, ChairmanTRENT FRANKS, Arizona WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana MARK GREEN, Wisconsin STEVE KING, Iowa TOM FEENEY, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, MarylandPAUL B. TAYLOR, Chief Counsel E. STEWART JEFFRIES, Counsel HILARY FUNK, Counsel KIMBERLY BETZ, Full Committee Counsel DAVID LACHMANN, Minority Professional Staff Member VerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:54 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 0486 G:\WORK\CONST\071905B\22494.000 HJUD1 PsN: 22494(III)C O N T E N T S JULY 19, 2005HEARING ON H. RES. 97, EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA-TIVES THAT JUDICIAL DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE MEANING OF THE CON-STITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON JUDGMENTS, LAWS, OR PRONOUNCEMENTS OF FOREIGN INSTITUTIONS UNLESS SUCH FOREIGN JUDG-MENTS, LAWS, OR PRONOUNCEMENTS INFORM AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORIGI-NAL MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OPENING STATEMENT Page The Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution ............................ 1The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution ....... 3The Honorable Tom Feeney, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, Subcommittee on the Constitution ................................................... 4WITNESSES Mr. Viet D. Dinh, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 7Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 9Mr. M. Edward Whelan, III, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 11Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 14Mr. Nicholas Q. Rosenkranz, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 28Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 30Ms. Sarah Cleveland, Professor, University of Texas School of Law Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 36Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 38APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD Prepared Statement of the Honorable Tom Feeney, a Representative in Con-gress from the State of Florida ........................................................................... 57Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia ................................................................... 58Prepared Statement of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch .............................. 59VerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:54 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 G:\WORK\CONST\071905B\22494.000 HJUD1 PsN: 2249428Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Rosenkranz, or Professor Rosenkranz, you are recognized for 5 minutes. TESTIMONY OF NICHOLAS Q. ROSENKRANZ, PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER Mr. ROSENKRANZ. I thank you, and I thank the Committee for the opportunity to express my views on this important topic. I largely agree with what has been said so far, so I will limit my-self to three brief comments: First, I will discuss the separation of powers implications of di-recting a resolution regarding constitutional interpretation to the judiciary. Second, I hope to show that the reliance on current foreign law undermines the bedrock principle of democratic self-governance. Third, I will explore whether the Congress should also take up the same issue in the context of statutory interpretation. The first point I wish to make is that House Resolution 97 is con-sistent with separation of powers. At a prior hearing before this Committee, my colleague, Professor Vicki Jackson, suggested that legislative directions to the courts on how to interpret the Constitu-tion raise serious separation of powers questions. She may well be right. But the key point today is that House Resolution 97 does not give directions to the courts. It does not purport to bind them. It simply expresses the sense of the House on this question. Because the resolution does not bind the judiciary, it cannot be objected to on separation of powers grounds. Indeed it should be applauded on these grounds. It is entirely proper for Congress to inform the courts of its views on constitutional interpretation. It is particu-larly appropriate when the method under discussion has such dra-matic implications. Which brings me to my second point. The current predilection for using contemporary foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution necessarily entails a rejection of the quest for original meaning. Simply put, those who would cite contemporary foreign law nec-essarily embrace the notion of an evolving Constitution. The notion of the Court updating the Constitution to reflect its own evolving view of good government is troubling enough, but the notion that this evolution may be brought about by changes in for-eign law raises fundamental issues of democratic self-governance. This, I think, puts the finest point on what is really at stake here. When the Supreme Court declares that the Constitution evolves, and declares further that foreign law affects its evolution, it is de-claring nothing less than the power of foreign governments to change the meaning of the United States Constitution. Moreover, it might take only a single foreign country to tip the scales and create a consensus in the eyes of the courts. And there is no reason why a foreign country could not do this self-con-sciously. Indeed, France has expressly announced that one of its priorities is the abolition of capital punishment in the United States. Yet surely it would come as a shock to the American people to imagine the French Parliament deciding whether to abolish the death penalty not just in France, but also in America. VerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:54 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\071905B\22494.000 HJUD1 PsN: 2249429After all, foreign control over American law was a primary griev-ance of the Declaration of Independence. King George III had ‘‘subject[ed] us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution.’’ This is exactly what is at stake here: foreign government control over the meaning of our Constitution. Any such control is inconsistent with basic principles of democratic self-governance, reflected both in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution itself. The third point I wish to make is that while the resolution is limited to interpretation of the Constitution, courts often rely on foreign and international law in the interpretation of other federal law as well. Now, Professor Dinh has explained how foreign judg-ments may be relevant to the interpretation of treaties. A different question is whether international law may be relevant to the inter-pretation of Federal statutes. Under current doctrine, courts regularly bend over backwards to construe Federal statutes to be consistent with international law, even when the text of the statute would perhaps be a different con-struction. Now, particularly in light of the dramatic expansion and metamorphosis of customary international law since World War II, Congress may want to consider whether it approves of this doc-trine. If it decides that the answer is no—that it would prefer for its statutes to be read according to their plain terms without reference to international law—then it might consider a subsequent resolu-tion parallel to the present one, expressly rejecting the general use of international law in interpreting Federal statutes. Indeed, while congressional mandates to foreign—Federal courts regarding constitutional interpretation may raise separation of powers concerns, congressional mandates regarding statutory inter-pretation generally do not. Thus Congress could, in fact, go further and enact a mandatory statute along the following lines: ‘‘Future acts of Congress shall not be interpreted by reference to foreign or international law unless they expressly reference and incorporate such bodies of law.’’ I believe that such a statute is worthy of seri-ous consideration. In conclusion, House Resolution 97’s nonbinding message to the courts does not violate separation of powers but, rather, reflects a healthy step toward interbranch constitutional dialogue. Moreover, the resolution rightly rejects the troubling notion that our Con-stitution can be made to evolve at the behest of foreign institutions. My only suggestion is that Congress next study this same issue as it applies in the context of statutory interpretation. I applaud House Resolution 97, and I thank the Committee for the opportunity to endorse it. Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenkranz follows:]VerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:54 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\071905B\22494.000 HJUD1 PsN: 2249430PREPARED STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS QUINN ROSENKRANZVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:54 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CONST\071905B\22494.000 HJUD1 PsN: 22494 NQR0001.eps31VerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:54 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CONST\071905B\22494.000 HJUD1 PsN: 22494 NQR0002.eps32VerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:54 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CONST\071905B\22494.000 HJUD1 PsN: 22494 NQR0003.eps33VerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:54 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CONST\071905B\22494.000 HJUD1 PsN: 22494 NQR0004.eps34VerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:54 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CONST\071905B\22494.000 HJUD1 PsN: 22494 NQR0005.eps35VerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:54 Sep 01, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CONST\071905B\22494.000 HJUD1 PsN: 22494 NQR0006.eps

bepress Legal Repository

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&amp;context=cong

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NELLCO Consortium Legal Scholarship Repository

Georgetown Law Scholarly Commons

bepress Legal Repository