Marriage Protection Act of 2004
MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT OF 2004 -- (House of Representatives - July 22, 2004)
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 734, I call up the bill (H.R. 3313) to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act, and ask for its immediate consideration.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a wonderful debate. It is something that I have waited for years to listen to, because these are very important questions and the Constitution is everybody's business. It is certainly ours.
What we are really debating is what does Article III, Section 1, clause 1 mean. The power to court strip, is it there, and if it is there, why is it a mortal sin for Congress to exercise it? I do not know.
The Court is not the only repository of wisdom, nor of due process. We could have a seminar some day on the first amendment. Why does the establishment clause dominate jurisprudence concerning the relationship of religion and the State, but not the free exercise, which is ignored, which withers on the vine? What about the 10th amendment, which says all matters not enumerated to the Court are reserved to the people? It is ignored. It has been ignored for generations.
So as we raise up the Court as the sole repository of wisdom and justice and fair play, we are not very historical because they are capable of abuses, too.
Now, democracy requires checks and balances. We know that. What is the check and balance on the Supreme Court? Unelected, these are people who are well connected and they get confirmed, and they are imperial in their scope, and no check and balance whatsoever.
Now, I would rather have a check and balance on the Court, just as I want one on the Congress, and the best check and balance is the people, the people who do the electing. That is what Article III, Section 1, clause 1 does. It reserves to the people the ultimate decision on a given issue.
Well, I just want to say for a court of last resort, I think "the people" is superior to these people who are nominated and confirmed and unelected and sit for life. I have never heard of an imperial state in this country, but I have heard of an imperial court.
This is not the end of the world; this is fulfilling the very language that our Founding Fathers were wise enough to incorporate into the Constitution, and all of the sky-is-falling-down rhetoric is misconceived, in my judgment.