Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Breyer: U. S. Constitution should be subordinated to international will
WorldNetDaily ^ | July 7, 2003

Posted on 07/07/2003 7:00:07 AM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: breyer; constitution; constitutionlist; culturewar; globalism; globaloney; impeach; nwo; oconnor; scalia; scotus; scotuslist; sovereigntylist; stephenbreyer; stephengbreyer; traitorlist; transjudicialism; unfit; usconstitution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 581-582 next last
To: RightWhale
But convenient.
281 posted on 07/07/2003 11:05:03 AM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: 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.

Unfortunately, many of our rights have ALREADY been given up! Where in the Constitution is federal income tax legal? Where does it say that churches cannot exercise their freedom of speech when it comes to political candidates? Use of eminent domain to steal private property (so much for property rights), the Federal Reserve... The list is lengthy.

282 posted on 07/07/2003 11:06:29 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: deport
Yep Newtie got his just rewards also fromt he good 'true conservatives' I'd guess.

Conservatives voted enthusiastically for Gingrich's conservative ideas in 1994, an election in which the GOP did rather well.

Then, in 1998, Gingrich tried a less confrontational, more centrist approach, and almost lost Congress.

What's the lesson here?

Votes that win elections are the medium of exchange in the political marketplace. If one is going to succeed in the business of politics, don't take your customer base for granted, or some of them may take a hike.


283 posted on 07/07/2003 11:08:13 AM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: SunStar
Probably. There have been three Death Penalty cases this year in which the SC has whittled away the ability of states to apply the penalty and opened the door for even more appeals from the well-funded legal leftist establishment. In one case, the ruled the DP unconstitutional if the murderer's IQ was too low, in another they invalidated the DP statutes of several states because they allowed cases to be decided without a jury trial (states where a jury trial was held only if the defense insisted on it.) In the most recent case, they ruled that anyone facing capital charges had to be represented by "competent" counsel. Previously, if an attorney had passed the bar exam, they were considered "competent." Now the definition of competence has morphed so that the state (i.e. the taxpayers) are required to pay for high-priced "specialist" lawyers (on a list provided by the ACLU no dobt) to defend in capital cases. The death penalty will likely be abolished for all intents and purposes within two years' time.

With "international norms" now being defined as a "compelling interest" to negate the letter of our constitution, we can look forward to all sorts of mischief. Most people don't realize it yet, but the Grutter decision of the week before last effectively rendered the US Constitution a dead letter. Essentially, a "compelling interest" - which can be any sort of vague ideal since only the courts can define it - has been used to trump the constitution itself. The people on this forum are much better informed than most Americans, who are profoundly clueless about the issues involved. We need to do everything legally in our power to change this situation. One by one, our options for peacefully bringing about any change are disappearing.
284 posted on 07/07/2003 11:10:55 AM PDT by Bogolyubski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

Comment #285 Removed by Moderator

To: Sabertooth
or some of them may take a hike.


Yep them 'true conservatives' seem to take a hike frequently......

Heck in 2000 17% of the self professed conservatives voted for Gore and 19% of the self professed religious right voted Gore....

So yes hikes are frequent it seems..... but that's the option available to all who choose to vote.
286 posted on 07/07/2003 11:17:27 AM PDT by deport (On a hot day don't kick a cow chip...... only democrat enablers..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: freedomsnotfree
Stolen from GKChesterton, who actually stated it better in the original.
287 posted on 07/07/2003 11:18:36 AM PDT by ninenot (Joe McCarthy was RIGHT, but Drank Too Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: Bogolyubski
Usually, by the time you realize something is wrong, it is altogether wrong and altogether too late to make it right.
288 posted on 07/07/2003 11:18:42 AM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: deport
And the option available to politicians is to stick to principles. Rare--but it happens. Ron Paul didn't lose often. Jim Sensenbrenner NEVER lost.
289 posted on 07/07/2003 11:19:52 AM PDT by ninenot (Joe McCarthy was RIGHT, but Drank Too Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: freedomsnotfree
I pray everyone that is currently in and out of the military, in and out of law enforcement and in and out of all the alphabett soap agencies read this. A morter has just been fired across the bow of freedom. These folks are going to be ordered to do some VERY unconstitutional things. Pray for our country.

Most of the people in out military are scattered across the planet, cleaning up the mess in Europe's back yard. It's going to be a little hard for them to help out.

Law Enforcement?! Their labor unions have been working to gut our rights to be armed for decades. And the argument that the rank and file are pro 2nd amendment is meaningless because the rank and file have been voting the gun-grabbers into FOP leadership. If they believed in our rights, they would not allow their own leadership to lobby for gun control laws.

The alphabet agencies?! You mean the ones like BATF? There's a freedom loving agency if I've ever seen one [/sarcasm]. FBI? The same group of half-wits who pretty much let 9/11 happen because doing real investigative work might have offended the multicultural types.

I'm not trying to be an a$$hole here (I'm told I don't have to "try", it just happens with little effort on my part;) ), but we're on our own and have been for a long, long time.

290 posted on 07/07/2003 11:20:43 AM PDT by Orangedog (Soccer-Moms are the biggest threat to your freedoms and the republic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Bogolyubski
If Satan can quote scripture, he sure as hades can whisper penumbras into Breyer, O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Souter's ears. By not acknowledging the true enemy, we fall to his wiles.
291 posted on 07/07/2003 11:20:49 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

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

Bump.

292 posted on 07/07/2003 11:25:39 AM PDT by randog (Everything works great 'til the current flows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
This is truly frightening.
293 posted on 07/07/2003 11:27:40 AM PDT by truthkeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
'ya forgot shotguns.....
294 posted on 07/07/2003 11:29:41 AM PDT by logic ("all that is required for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

Comment #295 Removed by Moderator

To: M. Peach
I thought it had a nice report.........(bang!)
296 posted on 07/07/2003 11:36:47 AM PDT by logic ("all that is required for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
Ah, the JBT's, America's real standing army.

The military is uncomfortably filled with patriots. The Blue helmets of the UN are dismally incompetent. Imagine a couple truckloads of poorly armed Pakistanis trying to take over the local Beagle Club. Not a chance.

It's the various Alpha's that have been built up specifically for the task at hand. They've had their dress rehearsals, they've been bumped up by what, about a hundred eighty thousand more after 911. They've been given ever more control over the local guys.

We're worse than on our own.
297 posted on 07/07/2003 11:37:30 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com (Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: freedomsnotfree
I'll never forget. That is where Bush1 lost the election. He was also very high in the polls at that time. Bush is responsible for his own loss. It was never "read my lips" like the spin goes. Bush lost his base with the ONe World Order.
298 posted on 07/07/2003 11:38:12 AM PDT by texastoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: freedomsnotfree
Do you really believe, for one second, bush loves the constitution? Please, all joking aside, tell me what leads you to believe this.

You expect a response?

How does that saying go? Logic and reason are the mortal enemy of the Left Bushbots, who rely on emotion and feelings.

299 posted on 07/07/2003 11:45:54 AM PDT by BureaucratusMaximus (if we're not going to act like a constitutional republic...lets be the best empire we can be...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

Comment #300 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 581-582 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson