Posted on 06/30/2009 9:15:53 AM PDT by La Lydia
One of the threats facing our judiciary is the view that judges can use the laws of foreign nations to interpret the American Constitution. This is not an abstract argument but a view shared by legal minds across the country and put into practice by our own Supreme Court. It must be refuted and rejected - it is dangerous, and it is wrong.
It is dangerous to our rights and liberties and to the Constitution that protects them. It is wrong because it violates the entire concept of republican government, in which the moral authority of our laws derives from the fact that they represent the justly expressed will of "we the people." Simply put: Do judges serve American citizens or the citizens of the world?...
The death penalty is a complex issue, and certainly there are those who would object to the sentence in this case. But the question here is not our view on capital punishment, but whether we believe the court has any authority to change our Constitution on the basis of foreign law.
If the American people no longer believe that the Eighth Amendment, as written, reflects their values, can they not amend their own Constitution and adopt a new amendment?...
As Justice Antonin Scalia asked in his dissent: "By what conceivable warrant can nine lawyers presume to be the authoritative conscience of the nation?" Let alone the authoritative conscience of the world?
Not only is it impossible for "nine lawyers" to act as a barometer of global opinion and evolving decency, but that effort would threaten the entire concept of an independent and impartialcourt system - along with the liberties those courts are supposed to defend. Here are just a few of the consequences...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Well if you listen to Obama’s comments about Honduras you’ll hear him citing OAS rules and speaking as if they were a matter of law. They aren’t and they don’t supersede the sovereign Honduran laws but people like Obama will happily try to acclimate us to that kind of crap.
Theoretically, Congress could pass a law forbidding the court from using foreign law as a precedent, or a justification for overturning US laws.
The SCOTUS is not exempted from acts of Congress in the Constitution, and Congress has the power to limit their authority.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
Nice catch.
Last I heard, they are still coming here.
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;
Foreign laws have no legitimate authority over U.S. courts. If a judge is willing to ignore the Constitution and cede to foreign laws authority which they do not have, why would a judge feel bound by a statute forbidding such behavior?
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.