Replies

Bottom line: there are cases where an American court needs to look at foreign law in order to establish certain facts regarding the case being considered. This does not mean that the US court is making its rulings according to foreign law.

I see. So basically American law and the Constitution shouldn't apply when a judge doesn't think it should. Why didn't I think of that?

Of course, the US already has laws of Citizenship and laws that regulate aliens and defectors and other non-citizens, but hey as you can tell from the flood of illegals coming over our borders, those laws really shouldn't apply either because a few judges don't like them. :)

Why do I have to obey the law when these people don't?

Boy I wish I could pick and choose what laws should apply to me. But I can't because I'm white, male, straight, middle class. It would be unfair racism, sexism and homophobia to expect consistant laws applied.

You're absolutely right. :)

No actually, this guy is wrong and if you agree with him, you're wrong too. But thanks helping to destroy my country. I'm sure a bunch of guys at DailyKos are smiling that you agree with them.

Boy I wish I could pick and choose what laws should apply to me. But I can't because I'm white, male, straight, middle class. It would be unfair racism, sexism and homophobia to expect consistant laws applied.

Let's say Person A gets married in Thailand, and then divorced there. He comes over here. Ex-wife comes over here and makes claims that he's not legally divorced from her, and she wants to divorce him under American law. How does the judge figure out what the real story is, without looking at the Thai documents and finding out whether the divorce was valid under Thai law?

Let's say Person B comes over to the US on a business trip, dies in an accident here, and there's a settlement. He has two wives back home in Kuwait, both of whom are entitled to a share in the settlement. If only US law were applicable, then only one would be entitled to any of the money.

The point that I'm making is that the amendment was clumsily worded. There are cases, specifically regarding foreign nationals, where foreign facts are relevant to the determination of a case. This has ALWAYS been considered by US courts, who for over two centuries have had to deal with cases where marriages, divorces, adoptions, and inheritance issues relating to foreign-born residents had to be worked out equitably.

“Of course, the US already has laws of Citizenship and laws that regulate aliens and defectors and other non-citizens”

Exactly, and that’s what treaties are for. Those foreign laws are already incorporated into U.S. law through agreements with foreign nations. So in reality, it’s really U.S. law being followed in those cases. As long as those laws don’t conflict with our Constitution then there’s no problem. Sharia law of course has no place in our society and conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.