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.

[humblegunner]

Unbelievable!!!!

Tick, tick, tick.....

[exmarine]

Every elected official now in office was put there by "the people who ultimately rule" as you refer to them. The people have ruled — and we have the government that resulted from that rule. So......which people, or group, or coven, or elite.....should ultimately rule, in your opinion?

In a republic, the people (voters) rule through their elected representatives (that's the difference between mob rule and a republic). If the representatives do a lousy job, they are voted out and new ones elected. That's the way it is supposed to work. However, when the people become ignorant and lose all virtue, a republic cannot stand. That is the point at which we find ourselves today. Now, what is YOUR solution? I am guided by moral princple and moral principle ONLY. The debased state of the average American citizen is not my problem, and voting for the person who best represents my views is therefore not a waste of my vote - if that is where you are headed.

I'll tell you what a waste of a vote is - voting for a representative who ignores his oath to the Constitution - as almost 100% of the Congress does! That is a waste of a vote!

[Consort]

I think your analysis is a bit cockeyed.

Of course you do.

When Politicians put self-interest ahead of principle, we all get hurt.

Unless his self-interest matches your self-interest. Many voters, for example, want to live off the government as an important self-interest to them. So they vote for Democrats. The elected Democrat believes in the principle and the morality and the ethics of big government and doesn't see it as putting self-interest ahead of principle. He is doing what the people elected him to do and he has a clear conscience about it.

If you start there, you'll actually begin to understand Government.

What would I have done without your deep insight?

[Sabertooth]

You and I did not use the leverage thing in '92 and we were correct.
Unfortunately, enough voters took the leverage thing seriously....and screwed us all for at least a generation. This country can take only so much leveraging.

This country can only take so much of the GOP advancing the causes of the Democrats, losing votes and elections in the process.

My vote is the President's to lose, but it can be lost. Aside from his road map nonsense, his foreign policy has been good. Unfortunately, Bush has pursued a number of ill-advised domestic policies. Still I'd hold my nose and vote for him tomorrow. However, if he gets the Amnesty for Illegals that he so clearly wants, then I'm done with him. That's a line I won't cross with this or any President.

I believe that he's lose a lot of votes if he did that, not sure if it would be enough to cost him the election.

But what if it is? Is that a risk you want him to take with a bad policy?

[exmarine]

I might add that we are a nation of LAWS NOT MEN. Men must follow the law of the land - which is the U.S. Constitution. I will defy the POLITBURO (SCOTUS) or anyone else who flouts that law. Any questions?

[tpaine]

"It's you, who put your hero worship ideology ahead of the country."

And you accuse me of being backwards? You never heard me refer to anyone as my hero, and you never will, so where are you coming from?
351 -consort-

Consort then wrote, answering his own question;

"Every elected official now in office was put there by "the people who ultimately rule" as you refer to them. The people have ruled — and we have the government that resulted from that rule."

Your 'hero' is majority rule, by political parties, --- "the people who ultimately rule"..

True enough, you have no 'one' hero. It is worse. Your ideology reveres the group.

[logic]

I'm afraid you're slightly delusional about the majority of Americans. Spending even a slight amount of time each day here at FR can give one a false sense of support in the obvious convictions we have, but I'm afraid the majority of this country could care less whether we live under the U.S. constitution or the U.N. constitution.

Us frogs are floating in a rolling boil, feels fine don't it!!

[Becki]

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."

Just damn.

Becki

[RinaseaofDs]

By Republicans, you might add, by republicans.

Both of them, if I recollect correctly, are republican appointments

[Consort]

That's a line I won't cross with this or any President.

I don't care who beats up on Bush, just don't screw thing up with somebody worse. As you can tell, I'm still pissed off with the people who enabled the Clintons, and I see the same scenario unfolding again. The electorate can be very masochistic toward itself and very sadistic toward others when it gets "disaffected".

[Action-America]

Although I don't disagree with the Court's decision in the Texas case, it should be obvious that Breyer's reason for his decision is flawed.

The 4th Amendment protects a person in the privacy of his own home, even if that person is a queer.  That's all that needs to be said - nothing about the opinions of foreign jurists, globalism or a "living Constitution".  It's simple.  If you allow government officers to enter a private residence to look for sodomy, then you open the door for allowing them to enter your residence to look for guns or banned literature.  As long as what the individual is doing in his home does not present a clear and present danger to children or non-consenting adults in that home or to those beyond the walls of that home or to society in general, then that activity, however perverse, must be protected under the 4th Amendment.  Otherwise, the powers that be, may some day consider the possible possession of a gun or "Atlas Shrugged", to be perverse enough to justify entry into your home.

Having said that, Breyer's suggestion that the U. S. Constitution should be subordinated to anything, especially international will, is on it's own merit, more than justification to begin impeachment proceedings.  In fact, O'Connor's suggestion that the Constitution may not be the last word on US law, borders on justification for similar action on her part.

In his dissent on the Lawrence v Texas ruling, Justice Scalia made a most insightful observation on the state of the Court today:

"Today's opinion is the product of a court, which is the product of a law-profession culture,..."

The Constitution is indeed, a living document, but not in the way that certain members of the Court would have us believe.  The reason that the Constitution is a living document, is because Article V of the Constitution, grants the people the right to amend the Constitution.  It is the people, who make the Constitution a living document.  In fact, the people have grown the Constitution 27 times since it was originally signed.

It is not up to the Court to change the Constitution - only to rule on cases, based upon the original intent of those who wrote the Constitution and its subsequent amendments.  Only the people have the right to make the Constitution subservient to international opinion, and then, only via the amendment process - a process, it should be noted, that the people have not chosen to undertake.  For a Supreme Court Justice to even suggest that anything should supersede the Constitution, as amended, is nothing short of absolute justification for impeachment.

I, for one, would welcome the beginning of impeachment proceedings against both Breyer and O'Connor, were it not for one fact.  Based upon Dubya's track record (ex: the Patriot Act, the HSA, the Jose Padillia case, etc.), he would probably replace them with jurists who have even less respect for the Constitution than Breyer or O'Connor.  More important than impeachment, is replacing the globalist justices with true Constitutionalists and that's something that Dubya is just not inclined to do.  Under the current administration, it's a lose-lose situation.

 

[logic]

I know from experence from where you speak, it takes no effort on my part either.

However, I believe the millitary will be more of a help than we realize. Do you believe they would stay scattered about the globe if UN peacekeepers came to America and started shooting people who refused to turn in their guns? or refused to go home from a protest rally? or refused to have the microchips implanted in their hand or forehead? I don't mean to say it will be easy or that even the majority of the military will be on our side, but I believe enough will to keep it from being a slaughter.

And as much as I hate the implications, I have to agree about the soccer moms too!!!

[Dark Wing]

You will love this one...not.

[djreece]

We need a plan of action on impeaching these idiots now! We have men and women sacrificing and risking their lives for us and the freedom secured by our Constitution, while Breyer and his fellow TIB (tyrants in black) spit on it with statements like this and with their recent decisions. It's long past time to pull in the reins.

[virgil]

I don't think technology has made our notions of liberty or privacy obsolete. Perhaps it is the SCOTUS that has become obsolete through technology.

[Sabertooth]

I don't care who beats up on Bush, just don't screw thing up with somebody worse. As you can tell, I'm still pissed off with the people who enabled the Clintons, and I see the same scenario unfolding again. The electorate can be very masochistic toward itself and very sadistic toward others when it gets "disaffected".

I can tell, and I think your ire is misdirected. You simply won't hold politicians accountable with your vote, and are bothered that others will.

What should bother you are the politicians who think they aren't accountable, and pursue boneheaded policies that cost them votes and elections.

[logic]

they haven't upheld the most important part for near 100 years now!!! remember the miller case....

[Consort]

Your 'hero' is majority rule, by political parties, --- "the people who ultimately rule"...
True enough, you have no 'one' hero. It is worse. Your ideology reveres the group.

You messed up again. You should read the thread before posting. The term "the people who ultimately rule" came from Post #352, not from me. I was merely rebutting the use of the term in my reply; that's why the quotes were included.