If the treaty was ratified, it would become as law via article 6, sec 2. If it was not ratified, the Supreme Court made a grave, and intentional, error and all cases coming from this court has to be suspect. 
Posted on 01/16/2006 8:49:28 AM PST by Law
Too bad the U.S. Supreme Court now prohibits state legislatures from passing laws that authorize capital punishment for murderers if they were minors when they committed the crime.
As for stare decisis, it binds lower federal courts and, through the Supremacy Clause, state courts as well. But this is a very recent precedent that was not well reasoned and may well change the next time the issue comes before SCOTUS, so an argument could be made that the Alabama Supremes should have distinguished the present case and have SCOTUS look at the facts of that particular case. I just hope that the Alabama Supremes' decision to overturn the death-penalty conviction is appealed to SCOTUS on a timely basis and that, if SCOTUS comes to its senses and overturns that absurd precedent that was based not on our laws and constitutional traditions but on Euroweenie theories, and that the Alabama Supremes' decision merely added a year or so to the life of that animal who should have been executed long ago.
That's what they told Dred Scott as well. If he wanted to be a free man he should have had his state legislature pass a law prohibiting the possession of slaves. Easy enough, huh?
He had to recuse himself from the case, so he was unable to publish a dissent. If he had not been compelled to recuse himself, he would have used the same critical language, or worse, to express is disagreement with his colleagues. Once a decision has been issued, judges are free to discuss them outside the court.
Job One for the new Roberts-Alito Supreme Court should be to dismantle the Court's decisions that use international treaties to strike down laws the Court's liberal wing doesn't like. If this nonsense isn't stopped soon, we will, in effect, be ruled by Western European politicians, and our own duly enacted laws will be null and void.
I see no other way to intrepret the situation. The case went to the SOOpreem court because of some unsettled legal dispute. The dispute involves whether a political entity in the United States possesses the power to deprive one individual of property in order to give it to another private individual outside of some dispute over contracts or penalties.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
I'm pretty sure most people don't want their stuff taken to be given to someone else and I don't think 50 states have laws establishing for any political entity such power. So the consent must be a default power of any political entity. One such political system having that power is communism. I don't think it should be part of our system and the constitution has these amendments for a reason.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The Kelo decision expanded that right far beyond what the Founders or any of us could have envisioned.
It's a horrible decision, but there is a way to defend against it. Texas has. Your results may vary.
If the treaty was ratified, it would become as law via article 6, sec 2. If it was not ratified, the Supreme Court made a grave, and intentional, error and all cases coming from this court has to be suspect.
Eminent domain is for public use and it is established by the fourth amendment. The tenth amendment establishes limits(at least it used to).
You must have a different copy of the Constitution than I do.
Well, I've posted excerpts from mine, including the one that says "public use". You have the opportunity to post from your copy words supporting your "private use" argument.
I don't even have a private use argument. It's like we're speaking two different languages here.
Quote to me the language of the Fourth Amendment from your version of the Constitution. I want to see which words you think have anything to do with eminent domain.
I made a mistake in the number, it is the fifth amendment, but it has been posted.
Just to consider with whom you are agreeing, here are the 5 justices that voted to take away private property.
Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
They don't look like conservatives to me.
I don't know where you're getting off asserting that I agree with them. I acknowledge that they made the decision and that it's now the law of the land unless steps are taken.
Hello, that's reality.
I don't agree with the decision and I think it's the worst in about 35 years.
Hope that clears things up for you.
Okay, that is fine, but for what reason do you disagree? I disagree with the decision, because a government does not have the power to take property for private use. That would completely nullify the meaning of "public use".
To take it to give to someone for private use is abhorrent.
Well, I guess I agree with you 100%
I'm glad we cleared that up. I couldn't understand why you were fighting with me.
Well, I don't know except that it cannot be the responsibility of an individual state to correct the errors of the U.S. Supreme Court. The concept of taking private property for private use is such an anthema to individual freedom that it must not be accepted in any form. Public use is one thing. It is tangible and real. Public good is intangible and subject to perversion.
Correcting the errors of the Supreme Court is a very difficult proposition. Congress and the President can do it if they had the guts.
Sometimes the individual states can do it, as in this case. That's actually pretty rare.
The average citizen can't do anything about it, ever, except perhaps through the ballot box, but that's a longshot.
Well, here we have to disagree. You and I are doing it right now. We are complaining about the decision and giving our reasons. That is the purpose of the first amendment. Enough complaining and things will get done. (at least that is the idea behind the first)
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.