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. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I supported the Defense of Marriage Act. I rise now in the defense of the Constitution of the United States. I rise now in defense of the separation of powers. I rise now in defense of a Nation of laws, not of men and women.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to seriously consider the ramifications of the legislation under consideration.

If this bill becomes law, it will represent the first time in our history that Congress has enacted legislation that completely bars any Federal court, including the United States Supreme Court, from considering the constitutionality of Federal legislation. Thus, it contradicts the Supreme Court's historic ruling more than 200 years ago in Marbury v. Madison, which enunciated the principle of Federal judicial review of Federal laws and established the separation of powers doctrine.

How dramatically different has that made America than every other nation in the world, in fact? A Nation of laws.

In Marbury, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

This legislation, however, would undue the deference and respect that Congress has given to the principle of judicial review. It would intrude upon the principle of separation of powers; and as a result, I believe it is unconstitutional.

This legislation also would undermine the independent Federal judiciary. Even the majority's witness, hear me colleagues, the witness called by the majority, Professor Redish, said that if Congress strips the courts of jurisdiction it would, the majority's own witness, "risk undermining public faith in both Congress and the Federal courts." That was your witness, not ours.

And there is little doubt that this bill would set a dangerous precedent.

The author of the Defense of Marriage Act, one of the most conservative Members that has served in this Congress, Bob Barr, said this: "My main concern with H.R. 3313 is that it will lay the path for the sponsors of unconstitutional legislation to simply add the language from H.R. 3313 to their bills." Bob Barr, the sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act, said that.

If this end-run of judicial review becomes law, what is next? No judicial review of laws restricting freedom of speech or religion or laws affecting the right to vote?

I was elected to the Maryland State Senate in 1966. One of the first bills I voted on in January of 1967 was to repeal the miscegenation statutes that then were on the Maryland books. America has nevertheless stood strong.

Let us reject this undermining of what America stands for, a Nation of laws, not of men and women.