http://www.house.gov/judiciary/schlafly062404.htm
Get Guns people, the government has plans for all of us, as slaves
proven by their own documented sessions.
-------------------------------------------
STATEMENT OF PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY
to the Subcommittee on the Constitution
House Committee on the Judiciary
June 24, 2004
The assault on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has
already begun. A lawsuit claiming that the federal DOMA violates the
U.S. Constitution was filed last month in federal district court in
Miami, Florida. A similar case claiming that a state DOMA violates the
U.S. Constitution is pending in federal district court in Nebraska,
where a Clinton-appointed federal judge ruled on November 12, 2003
that the case has legal sufficiency to proceed to trial.
The very idea that unelected, unaccountable judges could
nullify both other branches of government and the will of the American
people is an offense against our right of self-government that must
not be tolerated.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was adopted
eight years ago by an overwhelming majority of both Houses of Congress
and signed by President Clinton.1 DOMA provides that whenever the word
"marriage" or "spouse" is used in federal law, "marriage means only a
legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife," and
"spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband
or a wife."2
DOMA also protects each state's right to adopt the same
traditional definition of marriage.3 In response to the shelter
offered by the federal DOMA, at least 39 states passed state DOMAs,
which refuse recognition to same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
Four state DOMAs have been put in state constitutions; proposals to do
likewise are on the ballot in several other states this year.
DOMA is a splendid, well-written law that fully comports
with our great U.S. Constitution. So, what's the problem? You said at
the last hearing on May 13, Mr. Chairman, that it is "increasingly
clear" that activist judges will probably declare federal and state
DOMAs unconstitutional. When you polled the witnesses at last month's
hearing, all agreed that DOMA would not be given its intended effect
by the federal courts.
President Bush says repeatedly in his speeches around the
country: "We will not stand for judges who undermine democracy by
legislating from the bench and try to remake the culture of America by
court order."4 He's right - we won't stand for such judicial
arrogance.
Congress must back up this rhetoric with action! The
American people expect Congress to use every constitutional weapon at
its disposal to protect marriage from attack.
Congress cannot stand by and let one activist judge cause
havoc in our system of marriage law. The General Accounting Office has
compiled a 58-page list of 1,049 (since revised to 1,138)5 federal
rights and responsibilities that are contingent on DOMA's definition
of marriage. The GAO report states that the man-woman marital
relationship is "integral" to the Social Security system and
"pervasive" to our system of taxation. The widespread social and
familial consequences of DOMA also impact on adoption, child custody,
veterans benefits, and the tax-free inheritance of a spouse's estate.
We know that Congress has the unquestioned power to prevent
an activist judge from doing what all your previous witnesses have
predicted. For example, in 2002, Congress passed a law at Senator Tom
Daschle's urging to prohibit all federal courts from hearing lawsuits
challenging brush clearing in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Surely
the definition of marriage is as important as brush fires in South
Dakota!6
The long list of federal statutes in which Congress
successfully restricted the jurisdiction of the federal courts
(restrictions upheld by the federal courts) includes the
Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932, the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942,
the Portal-to-Portal Pay Act of 1947, the 1965 Medicare Act, the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the 1996 Immigration Amendments. The
Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a dramatic manifestation of what Congress
can constitutionally do when it wants to limit court jurisdiction.
This law denied jurisdiction to southern federal district courts,
requiring the southern states to bring their cases in the District
Court for the District of Columbia.
Isn't the protection of marriage just as important as any
of the issues on which Congress effectively withdrew jurisdiction from
the federal courts? The American people think so.
I urge Congress to protect us from the judicial outrage
that your previous witnesses have predicted by passing legislation
providing that no court of the United States shall have jurisdiction
to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation or
validity of the Defense of Marriage Act or any state law that limits
the definition or recognition of marriage to the union of one man and
one woman.
It is urgent that this legislation be passed now. This is
Congress's proper way to dismiss the pending lawsuits challenging
marriage exactly as the Daschle law terminated pending lawsuits about
brush clearing.
The Founding Fathers in their wisdom put into the United
States Constitution the power for Congress to curb the power of the
judicial supremacists by deciding what cases they can or cannot hear.
The argument will be made that such legislation means we don't trust
the federal courts or the Supreme Court, and that's exactly right - we
don't trust the courts to respect the wishes of Congress or of the
American people on the matter of marriage. Instead of basing their
rulings on the U.S. Constitution, activist judges are more likely to
use unconstitutional criteria such as "emerging awareness" (as in
Lawrence v. Texas7) or "evolving paradigm" (as in Goodridge v.
Department of Public Health8).
My written testimony recites the long historical record
which conclusively proves that Congress has the power to regulate and
limit court jurisdiction, that Congress has used this power
repeatedly, and that the courts have consistently accepted Congress's
exercise of this power. The record is impressive, authoritative, and
unquestioned.
The record supports Congress's power to limit court jurisdiction

This is probably the most important domestic issue to arise in recent
memory. Not the silly gun issue, though. Constitutionally, to hell with
the
abortion rights people and the right to lifers. Forget the flag burning
amendment. A pox on both sides of the gun control issue. Let's get back to
basics. The United States of America is supposed to be, at its core, a
D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y.

That means the P-E-O-P-L-E are supposed to make the B-I-G
decisions. The stance that we the People take on abortion, whether you are
for it or against it, is a cultural value, one of the things that decides
what a given society is. Those decisions must be made by the P-E-O-P-L-E,
not by the C-OU-R-T-S.

To say that Congress can exercise some control over
the courts misses the point. Congress M-U-S-T exercise control if our
democracy is to endure.

In general I disapprove of amending the
Constitution, especially for contemporary single issue reasons. The
Constutution is a fundamental document, and amending it should mean
finding
and fixing a fundamental flaw. The missing check on the judicial branch
meets that test.
E-N-D
C-L-O-S-E R-A-N-T