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

WorldNetDaily ^ | July 7, 2003

[You Dirty Rats]

Justice Breyer is equating a 1981 ruling by a European Commission with the "Western Tradition".

It's not unusual for SCOTUS to cite legal precedents stretching back hundreds of years, but those precedents were part of OUR tradition ... even if some of the rulings cited might date back to Olde England, or earlier.

Does "Globalization" mean that we will have to incorporate Sharia Law into our law? Scottish Law? EU Law? The Laws of Red China, or Zimbabwe, or Brazil?

This is worse than the EU, in fact. Although the direct wishes of many of the citizens of the EU are being ignored, at least the EU was developed by duly elected representatives of the people in each member country. In the USA, though, we have dispensed with such concerns; we'll just have SCOTUS decide what FOREIGN laws we will adopt.

The scary part isn't what they said, but that they clearly believe what they said is mainstream and inevitable. We've somehow lost a battle that was never advertised.

We are now officially a Banana Republic. Leadership changes via a Coup D'Etat by SCOTUS. Marvelous.

[riri]

that I might rather take my next big dose of Socialism and Fascism together in one big gulp by the big bad nurse Hillary than let the orderly give it to me in little doses for the next 4 years.

That is just what I posted the other night. Why baby step it any more? Thetrain has left the station and I don't see any turn offs. Let's just go straight to the eye of the storm and get this sh** over with.

[ffusco]

Hang the bastard. And leave his corpse on a post on Pennslyvania Avenue for all to throw rocks at.

[Bernard Marx]

This is amazing and disgusting. According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''

If there's a shred of respect left for the Constitution and laws of the U.S., Breyer should be impeached.

[L.N. Smithee]

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."

THIS GUY'S INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO BE ON THE SUPREME COURT???

[ExSoldier]

"I'm terrified at the notion of a landmark gun case coming before this court. I have no doubt anymore that this court would all but strike down the 2nd Amendment in a heartbeat."

I had to go halfway down the screen before I came to this comment and it possibly should have been the first question on the lips of all free men and women in this nation. RIGHT NOW there is a case that is pending review brought by some well meaning folks in California and represented by a real powerhouse pro 2nd Amendment attorney named Stephen Halbrooke. I don't care how good and how dedicated he is for this issue. The timing is wrong. This court has just proven it is far more liberal and Clintonesque than anybody ever dreamed!

There is but one major obstacle to bringing the USA into the fold of the NWO and don't anybody kid themselves that the creature doesn't exist...for what do you think is represented by the European Union? That major obstacle is the US Constitution and the LIBERTY-TEETH represented by the 2nd Amendment. This country must suffer unilateral personal disrmament before a world order can be completed.

I note with much satisfaction that one of the other posters on this thread is representative of some young folks about to enter active duty in our military and fearful of the war machine that could be used the citizens of this nation. That fear I think is well grounded. I would say to him that he is not alone, there are many on active duty that have been worried about this very question for decades. The military will possibly decide the issue. WHEN the government turns on the people, it will fall to these personnel to turn on them and take the technology with them. This will require great personal courage and the knowledge that they may very possibly forfeit their lives in the execution of the plan. It will only happen after there has been a general gun confiscation law passed and upheld as valid by the High Court.

There are about 100 million gun owners holding about 250 million guns in the country. I fully expect 9 out of 10 of these sunshine patriots to meekly hand over their guns with a whimpering "please don't hurt me or my family...here are our guns" and then run and hide. However, that leaves about ten million gun owners that are hard core believers in the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. Many of them also have military experience and even a lot of combat vets! Look what Eric Rudolph pulled off and he was just a lowly pfc grunt...not a SpecOps warrior. I don't think the globalists have any idea of the force they are going to have running around the country.

Granted, they have softened the blow...they saw it coming and did something I think is Satanic in nature...they sought to overcome resistance before it can be started by co-opting education. This is why we have stupid, lazy students and a revisionist curriculum and liberal teachers. Now, the cops and the soldiers are products of the public schools and they mostly feel there is no right to own a gun and they should all be banned anyway...

I know...I have fought this as a public high school teacher for 15 years. NOW my concentration is on showing my kids the AGENDA and how to spot an AGENDA when one is run by anybody...parents, teachers, clergy...whatever.

[You Dirty Rats]

The requirement for Justices to support the Constitution by Oath or Affimation is explicitly listed in Article VI of the Constitution. Not that it makes any difference to these Constitutional nihilists.

[witnesstothefall]

All of Europe was Nazi for a long season. Beware foreign fashions and fashionable foreigners.

The intellectual passivity of a Breyer or an O'Connor is a telling sign of the times.

When did America start to fear leadership, and uniqueness, in the world of constitutional principles?

[riri]

You probably are correct. My feeling up until about 2 weeks ago was that I would vote for Bush no matter what. Yeah, he was throwing an awful lot of bones to the liberals, but he has to. Sure, he will cave on the ;ittle things but hang tough on the important issues. All the typical arguments.

Anything, would be better than the alternative. That maybe slowly we could turn the country around, back to sane ground.

When we effectively told the world to pound sand and went into Iraq. I thought that was a good sign. Maybe we were on the road to sovereignty.

However, developments of late leave me perplexed. And now, I think why bother with the four more years of Bush? Only to be incrimentalized and told something is black when it is clearly white? Why bother? Where ever it is we are going--let's just get there.

[FBFranco]

...it (OUR CONSTITUTION!) was devoid of any reliance on the views of a "wider civilization."

We've had, and have many anti-American justices on the Soopreme Kourt, but this numbskull globalist is the worst.

Most of the lefties who have worked quietly to destroy this nation while sitting on this court have kept their crummy mouths shut. Perhaps we owe this one a "thank you" for alerting Americans as to the extent that Anti-American and anti- Constitution sentiment thrives on this despicable body!

If this court doesn't do a 180 degree turn, we're sunk as a nation! Hopefully President Bush will take notice before a true militia is formed!

Having just celebrated Independence Day it would be good to reflect on why this Constitution must be returned to resemble the original idea.

Our spineless, gutless fat-cat cowardly congress will continue to do nothing except spend us into oblivion and sell our nation to the globalist god!

[winker]

I agree, the latent liberals of the Supreme Court are poised to do deadly harm to America unless they are challenged and impeached. More food for thought to protect the safeguards of the Constitution. So goes it so goes the Nation!

[meyerca]

Where do we start to impeach the man and the woman

[tpaine]

RIGHT NOW there is a case that is pending review brought by some well meaning folks in California and represented by a real powerhouse pro 2nd Amendment attorney named Stephen Halbrooke. I don't care how good and how dedicated he is for this issue. The timing is wrong.
-exSoldier-



The "timing" could be perfect.
-- The liberal justices have backed themselves into a 14th amendment 'corner'.

The 14th was ratified, in large part, to defend the RKBAs of freed slaves from the violations of the post war southern states. -- The 14th told these states in no uncertain terms that they could not infringe upon our individual rights, without due process, - IE without "compelling state interests", ~exactly~ as this liberal court has recently held..

Thus, they are hoisted on their own logic on states prohibiting phony look alike 'assault weapons'.
- And also on the 14ths equal protection/immunity clauses..

The time is ripe, imo. Read this:




The Right to Keep and Bear Arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments: The Framers' Intent and Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Address:http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/saf-hal.html

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

Impeachment strikes me as an appropriate form of retirement.

[furnitureman]

a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a325b3f5d31.htm



Annan in historic meeting with Supreme Court &Congress/is believed to be unprecedented. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0c30a81760.htm

[F16Fighter]

"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."

Apparently the consensus at GOP think-tanks project a net gain of voters after all the lack of border enforcement, social programs, pandering and -- oh yes -- dismissive condescension towards it's conservative base is played out.

The only way the GOP's "customer base" will ever again seriously influence a presidential campaign in the future is by doing what every other "special interest" does -- creating a tangiable platform, making the "deal," then voting en masse as a political bloc.

Seems to work for everyone else.

[Consort]

If he fails to do so, I stated plainly that I will abandon any further trust in the Republican Party.

As I said before, there are RINOs at both ends of the GOP: the Liberal Republicans and the staunch Conservatives, both of whom the GOP can not count on to keep the Democrats out of power. When Conservatives, or anyone else, put ideology ahead of country, we all get hurt.

The political parties make the laws, appoint the justices and judges, raise or lower taxes, spend more or less, etc....not a group of pissed-off (disaffected) Conservatives or Liberals.

[furnitureman]

The Supreme Court is not supreme

Posted: July 7, 2003






With the Supreme Court's decision, striking down the Texas anti-sodomy law as an unconstitutional stricture on the liberty of homosexuals, conservatives fear that all state laws banning gay marriages will fall.

They are right to be alarmed. Three-dozen states may have enacted laws defining marriage as solely between a man and woman, but those statutes could be swept away by five justices. Should the court decide that homosexuals have not only a right to engage in consensual sex, but a right to solemnize their unions, what elected legislators decide will not matter.

Why not? Because we no longer live in a constitutional republic.

In a brief brilliant essay, "The 'Happy Convention,'" William Quirk, author of "Judicial Dictatorship," describes how Americans now live under a "convention" that is a fraud upon the Constitution our forefathers crafted.

Our original Constitution divided the powers of the government and put restrictions on those powers, in a Bill of Rights, and in the retention by the states of much of their sovereign power.

Lincoln's War overthrew that Constitution. When 11 "free and independent states" sought peacefully to depart from the Union, they were dragged back in, by invasion and war. By 1884, Woodrow Wilson was writing in his "Congressional Government," "we are really living under a constitution essentially different from that which we have been so long worshiping as our own peculiar and incomparable possession."

The "noble charter" of the Philadelphia Convention is still our Constitution, Wilson continued, but it is now "rather in name than in reality." While the outward form of the Constitution remains one of a nicely adjusted ideal balance, Wilson added, "the actual form of our present government is ... a scheme of Congressional supremacy."

After World War II, that second Constitution gave way to a third, an unwritten, "Happy Convention," in Quirk's phrase. By the terms of that convention, Congress cedes its power over war, peace and foreign policy to the president, and its power to decide issues of race, gender, religion, culture and morality to the Supreme Court.

Why did Congress cede its powers? For the most basic of reasons: survival. Decisions on war, peace, race, religion, morality, culture and gender divide us deeply and emotionally. These are issues where one vote could cost scores of congressmen their seats. Why not turn them over to justices, appointed for life, who never face the voters and who relish remaking our society according to their own vision and beliefs?

"Conservatives and liberals fight like cats and dogs and disagree on almost everything," writes Quirk, "but, oddly, agree the Court should have the authoritative role the unwritten constitution provides for. They just disagree on who should control the Court."

Why do conservatives and liberals agree that the Court should decide such issues? Because both "share an abiding fear and distrust of American majority culture."

Does he not have a point? Today, we read that George W. Bush and his advisers are terrified of having "gay" marriage become an issue in 2004, as they will have to oppose such marriages as immoral, in order to secure their political base, while the Big Media lashes them as bigots.

The Bushites are delighted to have questions of race, religion and morality settled by courts. For when courts decide, politicians can throw up their hands and say, "We may not like it, but there is nothing we can do. The court has the final say."

But, as Quirk argues, the court does not, in the true Constitution, have the final say. As Jefferson refused to enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts, President Bush could refuse to take down the Ten Commandments from that Alabama court house, should the Supreme Court order him to do so.

In our written Constitution, the doctrine of judicial supremacy does not exist. Congress has the power to abolish all federal courts except the Supreme Court and to limit that court's jurisdiction to "cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party."

"The Court has jurisdiction, in all other cases," writes Quirk, "only if Congress grants it."

Rather than going down the endless road of a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, as we failed to do, in protecting the flag, Congress should re-enact the Defense of Marriage Act, restricting marriage to men and women, and add this provision: "This law is not subject to review by the U.S. Supreme Court."

If Congress will not confront the Court, the people should confront the Congress. For our national sovereignty rests with the people, who took it away from King George and Parliament and lodged it in a written Constitution, not in this insiders deal by which we are ruled today.