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.

[Consort]

I'm sorry, I've had too much of the zero-accountability plan for the Bush Family already.

Your apology rings hollow if you do anything by action or inaction that enables the Socialist Democrats to control any branch of our government. Disaffected people don't always make the best decisions.

[ninenot]

Missed that class somewhere after Alternative Minimum Tax came near to bankrupting me.

Another item King George forgot to fix.

[ninenot]

Nope. Newtie's reward should have been banishment. Instead he appears on Fox News as though he actually knew something.

[mrsmith]

Well, you can't go wrong criticizing a WND headline. They're as bad as any media for ginning up controversy.

Still, the citations in Supreme Court cases of other countries laws is a very worrisome practise, and is the context people are (reasonably IMHO) taking his remarks.

[exmarine]

Today, I sent a letter to my Congressman, DEMANDING that he introduce a bill that will reign in the Oligarchs on the Court. If he fails to do so, I stated plainly that I will abandon any further trust in the Republican Party. It's time these people honored their oaths to protect and serve the U.S. Constitution. It's time to hold people accountable. As for Texas, they should DEFY the order as unconstutional. What can the court do? NOTHING! They have no power to enforce their rulings.

[ninenot]

Someday, when you get the time, read G K Chesterton on politicians.

There IS no two-party system. To paraphrase GKC: "Liberals advance a cause; Conservatives make sure that it stays advanced."

[deport]

Nope. Newtie's reward should have been banishment.

---

Guess them 'true conservatives' must have screwed up then.... too bad.....

[Porterville]

How in the world does anyone think the USA would give up it's constitutional rights without going into a global civil war??? The nation was almost destroyed 140 years ago when the Union took away Southern liberties.... The only choice is for the world to join our constitution or be crushed...their is no other way; Bryer sees the world backwards, I bet he has only travelled to Europe and Canada and really has no concept at just how impossibly correct the USA's constitution is towards individualistic human liberties.

[RobbyS]

Breyer has no more right to apply a holding of the European Court than Scalia has to apply an opinion of a papal court.

[DannyTN]

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.

IMPEACH this judge!!!

[wasp69]

The real face of judicial activism rears it's ugly head.

[exmarine]

Sure looks like he's questioning whether the U.S. Constitution should be the law of the land to me.

Me too. Check out this Clintonesque word-parsing from Breyer from the article:

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."

With a relativistic approach like this, the Constitution becomes putty in the hands of these tyrants.

[Old Professer]

No wonder Scalia was incensed; he has to deal with idiots on a daily basis.

I'd rather do without the court than to do without the Constitution.

Breyer needs to be removed.

[Dont Mention the War]

Can justices be removed from the bench? If any of them feel that the constitution should be subordinate to world opinion then they need to be removed immedialtely and tried for treason.

I don't know if he could be nailed for treason, but removed? Absolutely. SCOTUS justices can be, and have been, impeached. Look up Samuel Chase in Google sometime.

[RippleFire]

bump

[Sabertooth]

Your apology rings hollow if you do anything by action or inaction that enables the Socialist Democrats to control any branch of our government. Disaffected people don't always make the best decisions.

So don't encourage politicians to disaffect them.

Look, if you want to be as irrelevant to the decision-making of the GOP as Blacks are to the Democrats, make sure the RNC knows that they can take your vote vote for granted. Tell them that no matter how much of the agenda of the Left they adopt, there will be no consequences as far as you're concerned.

Just understand something: a lot of voters won't do as you do, and there will come elections when the veer-Left strategery will backfire. 1992 was one of them. Feel free to keep a ready supply of "if only enough of us would lick boots" snake oil on hand the next time that happens.

[Uri’el-2012]

It is time to act to save this country. Christians built it and we may have to save it..Bump


132 posted on 07/07/2003 9:11 AM MDT by RnMomof7

No. it's too late. Look Up. He is near and at the Door !

Mt. 24:33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it [Or
he] is near, right at the door.

1Co. 16:22 If anyone does not love the Lord - a curse be on him.
Come, O Lord! [In Aramaic the expression Come, O Lord is Marana tha.]
1Co. 16:23 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.

chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>