Posted on 03/02/2005 2:55:26 PM PST by Road Warrior ‘04
Not sure if this question should be posted as vanity, but here it is:
Constitutional scholars and lawyers: If Supreme Court Justices cite International Law to come to a decision, as they did in the death penalty for minors case, can the justice(s) citing international law and custom and not our Constitution be impeached and removed from the high court for delving outside of our Constituion?
I trust the People here. There'd be individual amendments, not a rewrite, and the amendments would be voted on one by one by the state legislatures. Only those approved by 38 of the 50 state legislatures would be adopted.
Have you overlooked the ratification requirement?
Disagree vehemently! The court is sworn to uphold and make decisions based on "OUR" Constitution and not international law or sentiment!
They are sworn to exercise original jurisdiction in cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party. They are also sworn to exercise appellate jurisdiction in all other cases and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. International law and sentiment aren't mentioned.
This decision uses the 'cruel and unusual' wording. It is a stretch, but it is the way the actual words of the Constitution are often stretched to cover a situation that was just about obviously not the intent of the Constitution.
Even if we went into such a convention with 38 red states, the political bruising, media campaigns, and who knows what else might leave us with 38 blue states.
I'd prefer to deal with issues individually, and the Constitution already provides for that.
As a practical matter, we don't have enough senators.
In order to successfully impeach a Supreme Court justice--and certainly several of them deserve to be impeached--you would need two things: widespread popular support among the voting public, and a 2/3 majority in the Senate.
At the moment we have neither, and with the news media 95% liberal it may be hard to get the requisite popular support.
The only way we'll see constitutional amendments given Congressional gerrymandering is via the state legislatures.
From what I have read, what these guys did to their victims was pretty darned cruel and unusual, too, BUT where is the descision that says they aren't really dead and disfigured any more?
As Michael Medved said today - this is country of laws, not men. I wholeheartedly agree.
>>Like the Naploeonic Code of France?<<
Well, Stanley Kowalski thought a lot of the Napoleanic Code! /tongue out of cheek.
Some basic Constitutional Covenants need to spelled out. What the Right to bear arms means- What is Life and Liberty - to name a couple. This slow progression toward Socialism must be stopped - if a convention results in abrupt Socialism - then let the revolution begin.
"However, it seems like it is reasonable to look at global customs to decide what should be considered cruel or unusual punishment."
The question is - who should decide what is cruel and unusual punishment? The Constitution says that any powers not spelled out in the Constitution for the Federal government should be left to the states. It doesn't say anything about leaving the definition of cruel and unusual punishment to the Supreme Court.
If you believe in the Republic and the Constitution, then this decision should be left to the people in each state, not to five unelected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If the people in a state decide that they want to consider customs in other countries, then that is up to them.
Of the liberals, only Souter and Breyer are almost certainly going to be on the bench in 2008.
You don't count Kennedy among the liberals?
However, it seems like it is reasonable to look at global customs to decide what should be considered cruel or unusual punishment.
I'm pretty much with you on this.
I personally agree more with the two dissents than with the majority opinion, but -- if I recall correctly -- there is nothing in the Constitution that binds the Supreme Court to only base its decisions on the hard wording of the Constitution or to the standards which prevailed at the time.
Even if there were, "cruel and unusual punishment" is in there. And that requires a reference to what is meant by that phrase, which is something which changes with time. In that context, I think the majority's decision is defensible.
Another point which I don't think has been brought up in this thread is that even the Supreme Court's authority to interpret the Constitution in the first place is open to question. I believe it took that on in Marbury v. Madison.
We take that for granted anymore, but I think the framers left a whole lot of gray area for good reason. Anthony Kennedy drove a cart through that gray area yesterday, but he was well within his authority to do so.
All that said, I think if we have capital punishment for anyone, my opinion is more in line with Sandra Day O'Connor's and Anton Scalia's. To whom it applies should be left to the states.
I have mixed feelings about capital punishment myself, but Malvo and that other punk who killed the girl? Why warehouse them for the next 60 years?
Kennedy is moving towards Stevens - unpredictable, off the wall, etc. Stephens is a space cadet and Kennedy is getting there.
Ain't no way these justices would get kicked out simply for relying on foreign law.
Not really. Despite this enormously disappointing vote and opinion from him, he normally votes with the conservatives and is more of a swing vote like O'Connor. It's possible that he's shifting as he ages to more liberal views, but his historical track record hasn't been bad.
"I am neither a scholar nor a lawyer but common sense tells me that when one takes an oath to uphold the US Constitution and then uses foriegn laws, customs and practices as a SOURCE for any decision rather than the US Constitution, and customs laws and practices of THIS nation, they are open for Impeachment."
I guess since you are neither a scholar nor a lawyer, you couldn't be expected to know that US law is based on English Common Law; England being a foreign country.
Further, the case in question involves minors. It may tie into the idea of an individual not having legal "capacity" when young, or it may tie into the concept of "cruel and unusual punishment."
Find the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" in the constitution. But since it isn't there, it falls back to interpretation. Same for capacity.
That interpretation is the job of the SC.
FYI I personally believe in the death penalty. I believe it should be used more. I'm not sure using it more on minors is the more I am most comfortable with.
The oath of office:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
Article VI of the Constitution is pretty clear:
"..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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."
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.