Justice Breyer: U. S. Constitution should be subordinated to international will

WorldNetDaily ^ | July 7, 2003

[mrobison]

LAW OF THE LAND

Justice: Can Constitution make it in global age?

On TV, Breyer wonders whether it will 'fit into governing documents of other nations'

Posted: July 7, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

In a rare appearance on a television news show, Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer questioned whether the U.S. Constitution, the oldest governing document in use in the world today, will continue to be relevant in an age of globalism.

Speaking with ABC News' "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos and his colleague Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Breyer took issue with Justice Antonin Scalia, who, in a dissent in last month's Texas sodomy ruling, contended the views of foreign jurists are irrelevant under the U.S. Constitution.

Breyer had held that a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that homosexuals had a fundamental right to privacy in their sexual behavior showed that the Supreme Court's earlier decision to the contrary was unfounded in the Western tradition.

"We see all the time, Justice O'Connor and I, and the others, how the world really – it's trite but it's true – is growing together," Breyer said. "Through commerce, through globalization, through the spread of democratic institutions, through immigration to America, it's becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people. And how they're going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think will be a challenge for the next generations."

In the Lawrence v Texas case decided June 26, Justice Anthony Kennedy gave as a reason for overturning a Supreme Court ruling of 17 years earlier upholding sodomy laws that it was devoid of any reliance on the views of a "wider civilization."

Scalia answered in his dissent: "The court's discussion of these foreign views (ignoring, of course, the many countries that have retained criminal prohibitions on sodomy) is ... meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since this court ... should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans," he said quoting the 2002 Foster v. Florida case.

Scalia's scathing critique of the 6-3 sodomy ruling was unusual in its bluntness.

"Today's opinion is the product of a court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct," he wrote. Later he concluded: "This court has taken sides in the culture war."

Both O'Connor and Breyer sought to downplay antipathy between the justices – no matter how contentious matters before the court become. O'Connor said justices don't take harsh criticisms personally.

"When you work in a small group of that size, you have to get along, and so you're not going to let some harsh language, some dissenting opinion, affect a personal relationship," she said. "You can't do that."

Breyer agreed.

"So if I'm really put out by something, I can go to the person who wrote it and say, 'Look, I think you've gone too far here.'"

O'Connor, too, seemed to suggest in the ABC interview that the Constitution was far from the final word in governing America. Asked if there might come a day when it would no longer be the last word on the law, she said: "Well, you always have the power of entering into treaties with other nations which also become part of the law of the land, but I can't see the day when we won't have a constitution in our nation."

Asked to explain what he meant when he said judges who favor a very strict literal interpretation of the Constitution can't justify their practices by claiming that's what the framers wanted, Breyer responded: "I meant that the extent to which the Constitution is flexible is a function of what provisions you're talking about. When you look at the word 'two' for two representatives from every state in the United States Senate, two means two. But when you look like a word – look at a word like 'interstate commerce,' which they didn't have automobiles in mind, or they didn't have airplanes in mind, or telephones, or the Internet, or you look at a word like 'liberty,' and they didn't have in mind at that time the problems of privacy brought about, for example, by the Internet and computers. You realize that the framers intended those words to maintain constant values, but values that would change in their application as society changed."

In an unrelated matter, O'Connor indicated on "This Week" that she would likely serve out the next term on the court, dismssing speculation that she was about to retire.

The current court is split between Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas and Scalia, who tend to hold the traditional constitutionalist approach to rulings, and the majority of O'Connor, Breyer, Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginzburg, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens, who tend to believe in the concept of a "living Constitution" subject to changes in public opinion and interpretation.

[Mr. Mojo]

This is truly incredible. I am at a loss for words.

Indeed, this is perhaps the most disturbing thing I've read in quite sometime. The POS should be behind bars with Johnny Taliban.

[deport]

Still whinning I see..... be careful now or mommy will take your bike and put it up or is that still a trike?

---

Who you gonna vote for?

---

click and give a buck

[johnb838]

If they keep blowing out the constitution, the military may become less loyal to the powers that be. We know who's side the military's hearts are with. We might become one of those banana republics where whoever commands the military has the power.

[SunStar]

In the Lawrence v Texas case decided June 26, Justice Anthony Kennedy gave as a reason for overturning a Supreme Court ruling of 17 years earlier upholding sodomy laws that it was devoid of any reliance on the views of a "wider civilization."

What about the death penalty? Is that the next to go?

[autoresponder]

We must defer to the Socialist and dictatorship controlled nations of the world's laws and courts now.

Whoops!

I forgot to add in the 20 something radical Islamic theocracy countries......

"Intent of the Framers" is obsolete.

The courts now admit to being both of our legistlatures and executive branches combined.

"Compelling state needs" truping the Constitution and our written laws sounds like Marxism to me.

The libs on SCOTUS have discovered "Executive Orders" at the stroke of a pen.

Tyranny livesz1

[bc2]

I have had many discussions with my roommates and our friends, probably about the same age as you guys, about this very issue: will the military, in the event of another civil war or revolution, stand down when the citizens march on their State capitals for redress of Constitutional grievances, or will they take orders, and fire upon us?

Out of 6 or 7 of us, 3 are in the military and assured us they would stand down. However, what a sobering day it was when we discussed the possability of seeing our own friends and neighbors on the other end of that field.

We have seen that terrible day before, during the Civil War, and I hope that we will never have to see that day again.

I certainly hope you are correct. God bless you and your friends. Those of us who are not in the military thank you for your service to our country. We despise the radical left and their attacks on our Constitutional Republic as much as you do.

[sheik yerbouty]

The PC infestation of institutions must be ended.

[steveegg]

What about the death penalty? Is that the next to go?

Doubtful in the short term, but I can see its usage radically altered.

[MattAMiller]

Breyer didn't say anything people here are saying he said. He said that figuring out how the Constitution governs our relationships with other countries and their constitutions will be a challenge. He also said that while the values in the Constitution are constant we are always faced with new technology and new situtations that the Founders never dreamed of that we must apply the Constitution to. That's nothing terribly controversial.

Now if you're going to argue that sodomy laws represent the view of society it's helpful to look at what society actually thinks. Now it's dumb to look to the Netherlands to figure this out, but it's a line of thought I can follow and it's rather different than declareing the Constitution subordinate to the whims of Europe.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

Dear Lord, Help us!

[ohioman]

Making the constitution subordinate to international will may happen under a liberal US President, sometime in the future. The consequences of such an action are terrifying, civil war or one-world rule. In that case, I would have to choose war.

[PhiKapMom]

Saying someone supports a socialist program is not the same as calling someone a "socialist" but then I wouldn't expect you to see the difference.

But then Rush admitted he was wrong about prescription drug benefits, but then you would have had to admit he was wrong about that. I don't consider Rush a hero -- never been elected but sure has a lot to say! Maybe if he were elected, he would find out that you don't always get your way and you have to compromise and take small steps.

Must be great to make millions of dollars and turn ultra-right conservatives against the President! Bet he feels really powerful -- but he is an entertainer who must be missing Clinton in office because he has all the answers. I am not the only person who used to listen to Rush who is turned off by him. BTW, he guaranteed that Hillary wouldn't run for Senate but she is sitting there.

Your calling Pres Bush a "socialist" came out the same day the RAT Talking point papers went out for the same word to be used -- that makes Dean look more "centrist." Sorry but if the shoe fits, wear it.

Since you have decided that Pres Bush is a socialist, then expect to be clobbered for your opinions. You would serve yourself to start posting facts instead of propaganda that you are distributing! And when Rush makes a mistake which we all do -- admit it instead of spinning! BTW, you called your friends to your aid.

I will never forget your attacks on the President that are uncalled for and beneath this website. President Bush is not a socialist and never will be a socialist. That is downright nasty and you deserve everything you are getting back!

[b4its2late]

The current court is split between Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas and Scalia, who tend to hold the traditional constitutionalist approach to rulings, and the majority of O'Connor, Breyer, Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginzburg, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens, who tend to believe in the concept of a "living Constitution" subject to changes in public opinion and interpretation.

The "living Constitution" crowd is very harmful to the document......

[deport]

BUMP TO THE TRUTH........ BUT GOOD

[ohioman]

Don't worry, the U.S. military would revolt against any attempts to usurp the constitution to a one-world government. For it is the constitution that our military is sworn to uphold.

[Rebelbase]

"tar and feathers"

Bump! This is outrageous.

[justshe]

---

President Bush is not a socialist and never will be a socialist. That is downright nasty and you deserve everything you are getting back!

---

There's a country western song called "I've Got Friends In Low Places" **by one of my favorites, btw**.....but I think TLB is being forced to those low places! Only place left to get his ego, or whatever, stroked!

[Lazamataz]

Breyer didn't say anything people here are saying he said. He said that figuring out how the Constitution governs our relationships with other countries and their constitutions will be a challenge. He also said that while the values in the Constitution are constant we are always faced with new technology and new situtations that the Founders never dreamed of that we must apply the Constitution to. That's nothing terribly controversial.

You're right. There's a lot more headline than meat to this article.

[jwalsh07]

Breyer didn't say anything people here are saying he said. He said that figuring out how the Constitution governs our relationships with other countries and their constitutions will be a challenge

This statement is indeed proof that life exists on different planets and in different dimensions.

The Lawrence vs Texas majority decision CITED Eurotrash legal precedents of recent history. The majority also gave weight to Mary Robinson's UN vision of one world libertinism and cited it in the same document.

How can you possibly deny this?