Newsroom

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has introduced a resolution, S. Res. 92, expressing the sense of the Senate that judicial decisions regarding the U.S. Constitution should not be influenced by other countries. The resolution states that determinations regarding the meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based on judgments, laws, or pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such foreign judgments, laws, or pronouncements inform an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States. "Step by step, with every case, the American people may be losing their ability to determine what their criminal laws shall be – losing control to foreign courts and foreign governments," Cornyn said. "And if this can happen with criminal law, it can also spread to other areas of our government and of sovereignty."Cornyn filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the Jose Medellin murder case arguing that if a criminal is found guilty of a brutal crime in Texas, sentenced under U.S. law, and the procedure is upheld by the Supreme Court, those courts should not be reversed by an international court. In the brief, filed in late February, Cornyn said U.S. cases should be decided by American law, American courts, and American jurors, and U.S. sovereignty should not be subverted by international law. On March 28, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments regarding the authority of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to bind U.S. courts, and the Court's decision in the matter will have major ramifications for previous convictions, as well as future prosecutions of foreign nationals who commit crimes in the United States. In particular, the court will consider the case of a Mexican national, Jose Medellin, who was convicted of the 1993 rape and murder of two Texas teens and sentenced to death.For a pdf file of the resolution, S. Res. 92, visit: www.cornyn.senate.gov. Following is the complete text of Sen. Cornyn's remarks that were entered into the Senate Record on Sunday, March 20:Mr. President, I rise to express concern over a trend that, some legal scholars and observers say, may be developing in our courts – a trend regarding the potential influence of foreign governments and foreign courts in the application and enforcement of U.S. law.If this trend is real, then I fear that, bit by bit, case by case, the American people may be slowly losing control over the meaning of our laws and of our Constitution. If this trend continues, foreign governments may even begin to dictate what our laws and our Constitution mean, and what our policies in America should be.In a series of cases over the past few years, our courts have begun to tell us that our criminal laws and criminal policies are informed, not only by our Constitution and by the policy preferences and legislative enactments of the American people through their elected representatives, but also by the rulings of foreign courts.It is hard to believe – but in a series of recent cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has actually rejected its own prior precedents, in part because a foreign government or court has expressed its disagreement with those precedents.Mr. President, with your indulgence, I will offer just a few of the most recent examples.Until recently, the U.S. Supreme Court had long held that the death penalty may be imposed on individuals regardless of their IQ. The Court had traditionally left that issue untouched, as a question for the American people, in each of their states, to decide. That was what the Court said in a case called Penry v. Lynaugh (1989). Yet because some foreign governments have frowned upon that ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has now seen fit to take that issue away from the American people. In 2002, in a case called Atkins v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the commonwealth of Virginia could no longer apply its criminal justice system and its death penalty to an individual who had been duly convicted of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder, because of testimony that the defendant was "mildly mentally retarded." The reason given for the complete reversal in the Court's position? In part because the Court was concerned about "the world community" and the views of the European Union.Take another example. The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that the American people, in each of their states, have the discretion to decide whether certain kinds of conduct that has long been considered immoral under our longstanding legal traditions should or should not remain illegal. In Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), the Court held that it is up to the American people to decide whether criminal laws against sodomy should be continued or abandoned. Yet once again, because some foreign governments have frowned upon that ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has seen fit to take that issue away from the American people. In 2003, in a case called Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the state of Texas could no longer decide whether its criminal justice system may fully reflect the moral values of the people of Texas. The reason given for the complete reversal? This time, the Court explained, it was in part because it was concerned about the European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.Here's yet another example, from just a few weeks ago. Until this month, the U.S. Supreme Court had always held that 16 and 17-year olds – like John Lee Malvo, the 17-year-old who terrorized the Washington area in a sniper spree that left 10 people dead – may be subject to the death penalty, if that is indeed the will of the people. The Court said as much in a case called Stanford v. Kentucky (1989). Yet because some foreign governments have frowned upon that ruling as well, the U.S. Supreme Court, on March 1 of this year, saw fit yet again to take this issue away from the American people. In Roper v. Simmons, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the state of Missouri could no longer apply its death penalty to 16 and 17-year olds convicted of murder, no matter how brutal and depraved the act, and no matter how unrepentant the criminal. The reason given for this most recent complete reversal? In part because of treaties the U.S. has never even ratified, like the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and because many foreign countries disagree with the people of Missouri.The trend may be continuing. Next Monday, March 28, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the question whether foreign nationals duly convicted of the most heinous crimes are nevertheless entitled to a new trial – for reasons that those individuals did not even bother to mention at their first trial. As in the previous examples, the Supreme Court has actually already answered this question. In Breard v. Greene (1998), the Court made clear that criminal defendants, like all parties in litigation, may not sit on their rights and then bring up those rights later to stall the imposition of their criminal sentences. That basic principle of our legal system, the Court explained, is not undermined just because the accused happens to be a foreign national subject to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Even this basic principle of American law may soon be reversed, however. Many legal experts predict that, in the upcoming case of Medellin v. Dretke, the Court may overturn itself yet again, for no other reason than that the International Court of Justice happens to disagree with our longstanding laws and legal principles. That case involves the state of Texas, and I have filed an amicus brief asking the Court to respect its own precedents as well as the authority of the people of Texas to determine its criminal laws and policies consistent with our U.S. Constitution. There is a serious risk, howeve