Confederate Battle Flag
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight to take up a topic that I think is going to be of interest to all Americans, but I can't dive into that topic immediately without first referencing my reaction to these long days of debate that have taken place here in Congress about opening up a subject that had been put away by this country since about 1865.
I grew up as a Yankee well north of the Mason-Dixon line. I saw the Confederate flag in multiple applications. It always was a symbol of southern pride and regional patriotism and a symbol that said to them that the South was proud to be the South, but I never saw it as a racist symbol.
But it had drifted into a symbol of an artifact of history until such time now as it has been seized upon by those who are using it to divide America again.
I regret that they have gone through these days of this ritual of excoriating the Confederate flag. I regret that that has been brought up. And one would think that, if it was that offensive, that they would just let it drift back into history as a relic of history rather than try to resurrect it as a symbol of something that they can't seem to let go of.
But, for us, we are a country that every component of our history has not been as noble as we would like. Every country in the world has had difficulties along the way. We have risen above our difficulties, Mr. Speaker, and we have adjusted to them and have put them behind us.
But we cannot be eradicating or erasing the history of our country. It is important that we do keep it in front of us so that we can evaluate the lessons learned and move forward and make progress. That was the reconstruction era. That goes clear back to right after 1865, and I regret that those old wounds have been peeled open again.
It is ironic that the gentleman would talk about President Lincoln's second Inaugural Address and binding up this Nation's wounds. They have been bound up. They have been healed up. And now they are open again, regretfully, Mr. Speaker. So I will package up that component of my response.
THE SUPREME COURT
Mr. KING of Iowa. I will now shift over to the topic that I came to the floor to address, and that is the topic of the Supreme Court from the marriage decision, the decisions that actually came down from the Supreme Court--I believe it was a week ago last Thursday and Friday.
On Thursday, there was a decision from the Supreme Court on ObamaCare, the King v. Burwell case, where the majority decision of the Supreme Court concluded that the law, as passed by the United States Congress, doesn't mean what it says.
It means instead, according to the majority of the Supreme Court, what they think the President would have liked to have had it said if he had actually been dictating the language there.
But we have to vote, Mr. Speaker, on the language that is in the bill, not the language that should have been in the head of the President and the Speaker of the House at the time.
That is why we have had a Supreme Court who, over the last generation, has been textualist. This has emerged from the Rehnquist court and should have survived and been enhanced under the Roberts court, that the law means what it says and the Constitution means what it says and, furthermore, it needs to mean what it was understood to mean at the time of ratification.
We do have a language that moves and changes and morphs along the way. And the language that is written into the Constitution, into the various amendments that are there and written into our laws, we can't simply say that because we have a different way we utilize language today, that somehow the people who ratified it had a meaning that conformed to the morphed language of the modern world. And I would have thought that Chief Justice Roberts would have been one of those who would have adhered to that.
I can think of times when the Court has said to this Congress: You may have intended one thing, but the language in the bill that you passed and was signed into law actually means something different. So you can either live with the decision of the Court or you can set about changing the language so that the language actually does what you intended it to do. It is a simple understanding of simple construction under the law in the Constitution.
An example, Mr. Speaker, would be the ban on partial birth abortion that passed here in this Congress in the nineties. It went before three Federal courts and then was appealed to the Supreme Court.
And the Supreme Court concluded that the ban on partial birth abortion that Congress had first passed was vague in its description of the act itself and that Congress didn't have findings that partial birth abortion was not necessary to save the life of the mother.
So it was struck down by the Supreme Court, and that means they sent it back to us. They said: Congress, fix that. And I got involved in that.
I want to tip my hat to Congressmen Steve Chabot of Ohio, who was the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee at the time, and Jim Sensenbrenner, the chair of the full Judiciary Committee. We held hearing after hearing. We rewrote the definition of ``partial birth abortion'' so that it was precise and clear and understandable, and we complied with the Court's directive.
In those hearings, we brought witnesses that put into the Congressional Record a mass of evidence that concluded that a partial birth abortion was never necessary to save the life of the mother. We did those things to conform to the directive of the Supreme Court because they read the text of the law.
But today we have a Supreme Court that concludes that--well, the text may say one thing, but we think the President would have preferred it to say something else. And so did most of the people, maybe, that voted to pass ObamaCare, that very partisan piece of legislation. Maybe they intended for it to say something else, too, but it didn't.
So the Supreme Court inserted the words ``or Federal Government'' into the statute that said an exchange established by the State. The Supreme Court essentially wrote into that ``by State or Federal Government,'' alleging that the language was vague.
That is appalling to me, Mr. Speaker, to think that in the United States of America, a country ruled by the rule of law, that we could have a Supreme Court who--no one has a higher charge to read the language, to understand it, to call the balls and strikes, as the Chief Justice has said.
I think he forgot to say that you are supposed to also call whether it is fair or foul. Well, I think it is foul. It is a foul ball for the Supreme Court to think that they can change the language of the law.
If they sent it back here, Congress then had an obligation to adjust the policy to our intent from now, maybe not the intent at the time that it was passed, because those years have moved.
Then subsequent to that, the very next day, Friday--a week ago last Friday, as I recall--the Supreme Court came with a decision, a decision on same sex marriage. I have some experience with this, Mr. Speaker, and it falls along this line.
In 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court, in reading the mirror of our 14th Amendment, which is in our United States Constitution--and the mirror of it is written into the Iowa State Constitution--they concluded that same-sex marriage was the law of the land in Iowa. And their conclusion was that it fell underneath the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment--the mirrored component of the 14th Amendment that was in our Iowa constitution.
There are 63 pages in the Varnum v. Brien decision in the Iowa case. I read that decision. I read all 63 pages. But not only that, I poked through it. I read it. I looked at the ceiling. I contemplated. I looked back down at the words. I tried to absorb the kind of legal rationale that would get you to the point where you could conclude that under equal protection or due process, that marriage really was between one adult and another entity, whatever sex or gender that entity might be. And they wrote that under the protection of the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause and due process, that, quote, homosexuals have a right to public affirmation, closed quote.
Mr. Speaker, I know of no place in law, I know of no place in society, I know of no place in history where there is an individual, let alone a group of people, a self-labeled group of people that have any claim to public affirmation, public approval conferred by the court. But that was the key to understanding this litigation that has moved forward since 2009.
It brings us into 2015. And we have a decision in the Supreme Court that commands all States, if they are going to recognize any marriage, to recognize same sex marriage and for all States to also provide the reciprocity of recognizing marriages that take place in other States, as those individuals may come through or move into their States. That is that right of reciprocity. It is in the Constitution, reciprocity.
But, Mr. Speaker, for the Supreme Court to essentially create a new right, a right to same sex marriage manufactured out of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, that was ratified in 1868--and, by the way, it ties into this dialogue about the Confederate flag and all the rhetoric that we have had in this Congress all week long. It ties into it in this way:
The 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution were ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War. They were established, first, the 13th Amendment, to free the slaves because the people in the legislature at the time didn't believe that a clear statute that freed the slaves was going to actually have the impact that a constitutional amendment would. So they passed the 13th Amendment to establish that there will be no slavery in the United States anywhere, ever.
The second was the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause and the clause says that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shall be American citizens. All of that to ensure not only that the freed slaves would be free and they would have equal access to all their rights of citizenship but that their children would also be citizens and that they would have equal protection under the law. That was the essence of the 14th Amendment.
We are asked to believe that somehow those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868 had secretly put some subtle language into it that they somehow knew we would discover in 2015 that says, there shall be same sex marriage in all of America, and the Supreme Court will find it, and they will impose it upon the rest of the country because they are the enlightened five of nine in black robes.
Well, the Supreme Court has had a terrible record, a terrible record on dealing with large domestic issues. In 1857, Dred Scott, they thought they could resolve the slavery issue. The Supreme Court was stacked in favor of the South. Five from the South and one from Pennsylvania that was sympathetic to slavery. They had a 6-3 operation going on. And they essentially declared that blacks could not be citizens, and they could not be free. They could not be citizens, and they could not be freed by States. And that if a slave owner owned a slave, they owned that slave in any State that that individual might go. That was the decision of Dred Scott.
They thought they had put the issue away. It came back to haunt this country over and over again. And it was part of the conflict that began in the next decade, within 1862, and that brought about the death of 600,000 Americans and split this country apart and it has taken years to put us back together. The Dred Scott decision.
Fast forward 100 years. They took prayer out of the public schools. We honored that decision. We stopped praying at least openly in our public schools. Now the question is: Can a football team without the coach kneel on the grass and pray before a ball game?
We are a First Amendment country. Freedom of religion. And we are dealing with this kind of assault on free religion because the Supreme Court in Murray v. Curlett in 1963 dumped that on us; 1973, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Then you have the Lawrence v. Texas decision.
And it goes on and on and on, Mr. Speaker. Up to this point, the domestic life of America has been dramatically transformed by order of the Supreme Court, the people least connected to the will of the people. When they separate themselves from the text of the statute and the text in the understanding of the Constitution, we are in a place where the Supreme Court then has put themselves above the law, above the Constitution, and above the will of the people.
One of the people that understands that as well as anybody in this United States Congress is my friend from Texas, Mr. Louie Gohmert, who speaks to us often in these Chambers. I know about his marriage, and I know about his conviction to the rule of law and the Constitution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Texas. I appreciate his presentation here tonight and the many times and many hours that he has spent on the floor. I also would say for the record that the gentleman from Texas, Judge Louie Gohmert, who had the temptation to legislate as a judge and understood constitutionally how to go about that, resigned his seat as a judge and ran for the United States Congress because he is, at heart, a legislator with a deep respect and appreciation for the rule of law, the statutory construction, and the Constitution itself.
Congressman Gohmert did come to Iowa and rode the judge bus. We traveled around from town to town and gave speech after speech. There were some folks to greet us there that weren't very happy with our presence. I don't think their mothers were very proud of them, Mr. Speaker, but I think Louie's mother can be very proud of him.
I look across the Midwest, in the heart of the heartland, and you can't think about the heart of the heartland without thinking of Kansas. I know the gentleman that represents the vast reaches of the western at least two-thirds of Kansas, if not more, has arrived here tonight, and he has demonstrated his faith and his commitment to family in a lot of ways. I have been able to see that.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Texas. I appreciate his presentation here tonight and the many times and many hours that he has spent on the floor. I also would say for the record that the gentleman from Texas, Judge Louie Gohmert, who had the temptation to legislate as a judge and understood constitutionally how to go about that, resigned his seat as a judge and ran for the United States Congress because he is, at heart, a legislator with a deep respect and appreciation for the rule of law, the statutory construction, and the Constitution itself.
Congressman Gohmert did come to Iowa and rode the judge bus. We traveled around from town to town and gave speech after speech. There were some folks to greet us there that weren't very happy with our presence. I don't think their mothers were very proud of them, Mr. Speaker, but I think Louie's mother can be very proud of him.
I look across the Midwest, in the heart of the heartland, and you can't think about the heart of the heartland without thinking of Kansas. I know the gentleman that represents the vast reaches of the western at least two-thirds of Kansas, if not more, has arrived here tonight, and he has demonstrated his faith and his commitment to family in a lot of ways. I have been able to see that.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
They understand that in Kansas, they understand that in Iowa, and I suspect they understand that in Florida.
As I look over, I see the gentleman from Florida--I am looking at two doctors here--the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
I thank the gentleman from Kansas for coming down tonight, as well as the gentlemen from Florida and Texas, and the other folks that might show up.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, I thank the fine gentleman from Florida for his presentation, his understanding of this, and his conviction on constitutional issue after constitutional issue, including reminding us this is a constitutional republic that we live in.
I would like to now recognize the husband of Roxanne Babin, the gentleman from Texas whom I get to count as a good friend here in this Congress, who has stood up on principle time and again.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I appreciate very much his commitment to many causes, especially this cause.
I recognize the gentleman from California that has arrived, and I point out that we are down to 3 minutes.
I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa) to hear what he might have to say about this topic.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, we have heard from a list of solid constitutionalists here this evening that are not only committed to their oath to support and defend the Constitution, but, also, each committed to their own marriage throughout these years that, if we added them up, it is well over a century of us together. Marilyn and I are 43 years.
I am steeped in the Constitution and the rule of law. I have great respect for the Supreme Court of United States, but I have greater respect for the supreme law of the land, which is the Constitution of the United States.
If the law doesn't mean what it says and if the Constitution can have divined within it certain rights that are imagined only by this court and not imagined by the people that ratified the very language that they are ruling upon, then what have we come to?
I believe that this decision, this Obergefell v. Hodges decision on marriage, right behind the decision of King v. Burwell--that, if the court continues down this path, Mr. Speaker, they will render our Constitution an artifact of history and this country will not respect a court that doesn't respect the language and the text of the Constitution.
We are here to reject and criticize the decision of the Supreme Court that imposes same-sex marriage on all of America and requires each of the States to recognize with reciprocity those marriages. That is a decision this Congress couldn't make for the American people, and it is a decision that should be left up to the States.
Mr. Speaker, I will submit that I am one who is prepared to support the simple elimination of civil marriage because this government has gotten into it so far that holy matrimony will not be protected from the further litigation in this Court unless we separate it from civil marriage itself.
The next litigation that comes will be that that sues our priests and our pastors to command them to conduct same-sex marriages at their altars, and that is where the First Amendment freedom of religion comes into conflict with the distorted view of the 14th Amendment which is part of this Obergefell, and that, Mr. Speaker, will be a constitutional crisis.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Source