Skip to comments.
Is Relying On Foreign Law An Impeachable Offense?
Eagle Forum ^
| March 16, 2005
| Phyllis Schlafly
Posted on 03/16/2005 11:19:13 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-118 next last
To: adorno
Can a supreme court ruling be overturned as unconstitional because it violates our constitution? If so, is there a higher power above the supreme court that could/would issue such a ruling? We the People. We gave them that power. We can take it away. Impeach them. Petition the new Court to re-hear the case.
21
posted on
03/16/2005 11:43:04 AM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(Sooner or later, you have to stand your ground. Whether anyone else does or not. - Michael Badnarik)
To: Tailgunner Joe
Is Relying On Foreign Law An Impeachable Offense?I dunno.
Let's ask ol' "Not Proven/Scottish Law" Snarlin' Arlen Spector...
22
posted on
03/16/2005 11:44:47 AM PST
by
Malacoda
(*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ! *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*)
To: ndt
Foreign laws like ancient Hebrew laws?So, you're down with the US Supreme Court using current, "progressive", European laws as a basis to overturn state laws enacted by the duly elected representatives of the people of that state?
To: Tailgunner Joe
I am still unclear whether all justices, on assuming office, use the identically same oath...
Does anyone know?
If it is the same one, does anyone know the exact words that the oath contains?
I see the distinct probability that some Supreme Court Justices have repeatedly broken their oath of office, and then added insult to injury in their subsequent explanations.
24
posted on
03/16/2005 11:51:38 AM PST
by
Publius6961
(The most abundant things in the universe are ignorance, stupidity and hydrogen)
To: Tailgunner Joe
it's hard to see invoking foreign law as upholding the Constitution of the United States. Can someone tell me why we're just sitting around watching this? What is the proper remedy?
25
posted on
03/16/2005 11:51:51 AM PST
by
the invisib1e hand
("remember, from ashes you came, to ashes you will return.")
To: Tailgunner Joe
It seems that every liberal is trying to see who is the biggest traitor!
To: MichiganConservative
On the contrary what I said was "it is not a good idea" period, no exceptions.
27
posted on
03/16/2005 11:56:41 AM PST
by
ndt
This foreign law stuff is merely a pretext; the real "offense" is rendering a decision with which people politically disagree.
28
posted on
03/16/2005 11:56:48 AM PST
by
Kretek
To: Publius6961
I am still unclear whether all justices, on assuming office, use the identically same oath... Does anyone know? If it is the same one, does anyone know the exact words that the oath contains?Section 3331 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code requires high-ranking officers, including Supreme Court justices, to take this oath: "I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
29
posted on
03/16/2005 11:59:55 AM PST
by
Between the Lines
(True Christianity is the best kept secret around.)
To: Tailgunner Joe
I am a little confused. Our laws are based on Roman law. We created law from Roman law. Blacks law is based on Roman law. Our whole legal system is based on foreign law. I thought this was true from the bingeing of our country?
I am sorry, but what am I missing?
To: the invisib1e hand
The only way to prevent activist judges is to hold them accountable. Who would they be accountable to? The people. The constitution was written for the U.S. and hence the people.
Judges can be held accuntable directly by the people voting for or against them. Appointments by the president and governors and approval by the elected officials is not working.
Let the people decide who should be judging them.
31
posted on
03/16/2005 12:00:17 PM PST
by
adorno
To: SouthernBoyupNorth
Maybe we should give Sharia law a little try over here. Especially for killers and thieves.
To: Tailgunner Joe
No.
Dumb decisions are not impeachable.
33
posted on
03/16/2005 12:01:30 PM PST
by
Modernman
("Normally, I don't listen to women, or doctors." - Captain Hero)
To: Steve Van Doorn
Steve, no we are based on English Common law. Even though we use many terms from Roman Law it isn't the basis of our law.
To: Steve Van Doorn
To: Piquaboy
If we are going to be rules by the Supremes, maybe Diana Ross and two other bewigged black sistahs can do a more interesting job LOL
To: Tailgunner Joe
"a closed small group of unelected men, answerable to no one, deciding the fate of a great nation by the criteria of their own prejudice."
Ronald Reagan speaking of the Soviet Politiboro in 1982
37
posted on
03/16/2005 12:05:01 PM PST
by
An Old Marine
(Freedom isn't Free)
To: brooklyn dave
"we are based on English Common law"
that is true.. and where did they get theirs from?
To: brooklyn dave
Does your reply mean that you believe roman law did not influence english common law?
39
posted on
03/16/2005 12:06:06 PM PST
by
bigsigh
To: Tailgunner Joe
I clicked on the link and actually read the majority decision, something Schlafly apparently did not. Before I stopped counting I noted at least 25 citations from prior decisions of the Supreme Court and lower courts that Justice Kennedy used to support the majority ruling. And that was before Justice Kennedy said, "The opinion of the world community,
while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions."
So Phyllis is full of crap. The Court did not rely on international law for their decision, but mentioned that law in the course of their majority ruling. The Court, as it should have, relied on precedent from U.S. Supreme Court and lower court rulings. There is nothing to impeach over.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-118 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson