Posted on 10/30/2003 5:27:22 AM PST by HarleyD
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:40:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor predicts that the U.S. Supreme Court will increasingly base its decisions on international law rather than the U.S. Constitution, according to an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
By doing so, the court will make a good impression among people from other countries, she said. "The impressions we create in this world are important and they can leave their mark," Justice O'Connor said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Here is what the above article says:
The first cited case was decided in 2002 when the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded, she said. In arriving at that decision, Justice O'Connor said, the high court noted that the world community overwhelmingly disapproved of the practice.
Also influential was a court brief filed by American diplomats who discussed the difficulties confronted in their foreign missions due to U.S. death-penalty practices, she said. The second ruling cited by Justice O'Connor was the striking down of the Texas antisodomy law, relying partly on a series of decisions by European courts on the same issue.
What treaties are you referring to?
I don't have a lot of passion in trying to defend the internationalists on the court. Overall, I agree that the court is moving in that direction, but I do disagree that this is what this article is saying. From my point of view, if the author was so sure the reader knew what you claim we were suppose to know, the author would not have included the question mark.
Any properly executed treaty under article 6 of our constitution.
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. "
The fact is, American law, Constitutional and otherwise, federal and state, has always looked to decisions of other common law courts (whether of other states or other common law countries) for guidance where there were no controllling decisions. This is especially likely to come up at the Supreme Court, because cases only go to the Supreme Court if there isn't a controlling Supreme Court decision on the issue in question.
The problem arises when the Supremee look to courts that are not common law courts, which means all of the European courts except the British and Irish, and most of the other courts in the world. Those courts do not have our traditions of limited powers of government, unalienable rights of individuals, and such things as the presumption of innocence and a right against self-incrimination in criminal trials.
My take on this is that it is of great concern, but that we must be discerning in which issues should and should not take judicial notice of other laws.
Uh, no...
"I suspect," Justice O'Connor said, "that over time we will rely increasingly — or take notice, at least — increasingly on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues."
Anyway, the example they gave was execution of retarded felons. What treaty governs that?
The Antifederalists were indeed prescient.
Lest we forget; Justice(?) Breyer would feel slighted...
Justice Breyer: U. S. Constitution should be subordinated to international will
FGS
We have any number of extradition treaties with other countries. Extradition involves sending criminals from one area (or country) to another (ours). Some of these countries have prohibitions against executing felons. So there is certainly a valid nexus between international treaties and executions.
My response to you was a simple answer to your question in #23 when you asked what treaties I was referring to. At that time we were not discussing who was right in their interpretation of a very poorly written article.
HUH? You've just contradicted yourself. Perhaps my statement would have been a little clearer had I said that the ratification of treaties are an essential power granted under the constitution, and has a force and effect equal to any federal statute.
Besides, O'Connor isn't talking about basing decisions on treaties that have been entered into by the U.S. and ratified by 2/3 of the Senate (or by majorities of each House in the case of non-treaty agreements).
Would your desire to have her impeached change if her statement was limited to these such treaties?
Agreed. I think this is why the libs and their pals in the lawyer profession are so aghast that in the Terri Schindler-Schiavo case, the governor and the legislature bypassed the judical branch. There remains checks and balances, its just a matter of having elected officals that have the impudence to use the tools.
The Antifederalists were indeed prescient.
Yes, they were the true heros of their and our time. The rub is that today, conservatives get flamed for citing the FEDERALISTS in their interpretation of the constitution. When history shows the antifederalists were the true conservatives. The federalists gave us what is now big government.
One does not need a window into the future to take a lesson from history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.