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.

[Sabertooth]

Yeah, I'm saying all of that stuff. I'm not going to find a perfect politician, so I'll accept the lesser of two evils, up to a point.

[SteamShovel]

The more I think about this, the more astounded I am.

Me Too... They apparently don't fear impeachment.

[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.
366 -tpaine-



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.
-consort-


I left purposely left those quotes in your quoted reply.
- Yep, they did indeed show that the term "the people who ultimately rule" came from Post #352, not from you.

Now you are merely using that non-issue to avoid my point, which was;

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

[tpaine]

"-- stop pretendting that the majority decision in Lawrence is Constitutionally sound --"
-jwalsh07-


Its basic 'soundness' will become evident when our individual RKBA's is finally resolved by application of those same principles.

States do NOT have the power to prohibit individual rights.
As I posted earlier at #335:

To: ExSoldier; Everybody

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, the justices are hoisted on their own logic by 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
335 -tpaine-

[jwalsh07]

The liberal justices have backed themselves into a 14th amendment 'corner'.

And you actually believe this?

This court will rule that the RTKABA is NOT an unfettered indidual right and you can take that to the bank.

More likely is that they, citing European precedent, rule that the citizens of this country have a TRANSCENDENT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to be FREE of all firearms.

[judicial meanz]

You start with a petition, and you present it to a favorable US Congressman. Once the petition has an appropriate amount of signatures, the Congressman (woman) should then introduce an Impeachment motion.

[ExSoldier]

"The liberal justices have backed themselves into a 14th amendment 'corner'."

I can't agree. Where in the 14th Amendment does it give a rational excuse for abortion? Where does it mention abortion at all? Yet this is the primary Amendment used to justify the Roe v. Wade atrocity.

Under the Full Faith and Credit clause, CCW reciprocity should be the law of the land in every state and territory in the country. But that's not the way it works, is it? In fact, as we have so trustingly accepted ever since 1803 with Marbury v. Madison, the US Constitution means whatever the currently sitting court thinks it means. In which case we are screwed, royally.....

[judicial meanz]

Yeah, I'm saying all of that stuff. I'm not going to find a perfect politician, so I'll accept the lesser of two evils, up to a point

The true leaders in America refuse to go into politics. Who wants to have their every move criminalized, their backgrounds investigated ad nauseum, the bones drug out of their closets, and their families maligned?

The politics of personal destruction weed out people who would do a great job and just give us self serving political pretty boys and girls who dont care a whiff about anyone but themselves

Thats why we have had to endure so-so political leaders for decades ( with the exception of Reagan)

[Republican Wildcat]

What is the wording of the oath a Justice takes?

[FreeReign]

[O'Connor]:"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."

In the above quote, it sort of sounds like O'Connor is trying to contrast treaties and the U.S. Constitution, as if a treaty can usurpt the authority of the Constitution.

The power of entering into treaties is part of the Constitution, and any aspect of a treaty must be Constitutional and it must be ratified into law. The contrasting "but", in the above O'Connor quote makes it sound like O'Connor believes that treaties can override the U.S. Constitution.

Concerning Breyer, his remarks now explain his past rulings and the combination of his remarks and the past rulings now makes him deserving of impeachment.

[ninenot]

What would I have done without your deep insight?

Continue to be a mind-numbed Bushbot, I suppose.

[ninenot]

We agree. You posted this response to the wrong guy.

[FreeReign]

...42 appointed Breyer

Clinton, Breyer -- two peas in a sovereignty-stealing pod.

[ninenot]

Breyer's reasoning is flawed because it is up to the States to make/unmake these laws, not the SCOTUS. The 4th Amendment has nothing to do with this at all. Period.

CF: Thomas' opinion. He thought the law was silly--but also agrees w/Scalia that the Supremes should butt out of Texas' affairs. Pun intended.

[ninenot]

and never once examine themselves to discover how their own ineptness, cowardice, slothfulness, greed, self-obsession and petty arrogance might have contributed to the decay and decadence in society and government.

Am I supposed to resemble that remark? Do letters, emails, phone calls, and ward-work count? Showing up at demonstrations? Giving the time and support necessary for the politicians I support and the ideas I espouse?

I showed up at GOP Party meetings and had to listen to a fat has-been academic who once was Governor of Wisconsin spit and drool all over himself when referring to PJBucanan--just because we, who worked for PJB, scared the bejabbers out of him and his Gummint-Lifetime-Employee RINO crowd.

Your insults are second-rate in comparison.

[tpaine]

To: ExSoldier; Everybody
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
335 -tpaine-
_____________________________________

I can't agree. Where in the 14th Amendment does it give a rational excuse for abortion? Where does it mention abortion at all? Yet this is the primary Amendment used to justify the Roe v. Wade atrocity.
-ExS-

Abortion, like sex, is protected by our general unenumerated rights. -- Words like Life/Liberty/Property, cover a lot of specific rights.
Like a right to be left alone in the privacy of your bedroom, or your gunroom.
______________________________________


Under the Full Faith and Credit clause, CCW reciprocity should be the law of the land in every state and territory in the country. But that's not the way it works, is it? In fact, as we have so trustingly accepted ever since 1803 with Marbury v. Madison, the US Constitution means whatever the currently sitting court thinks it means. In which case we are screwed, royally.
-ExS-


Equal protection under the 14th will also apply to CCW.

And, - you're dead wrong on the Marbury decision, -- the last sentence of which says that laws repugnant to our constitution are void.

This hardly establishes that the "US Constitution means whatever the currently sitting court thinks it means."

[Godebert]

.........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.

These people are supposed to rule on the Constitutionality of laws.......not wether the law is popular with public opinion. The Constitution Party is correct in that they should be impeached.

[jwalsh07]

Abortion, like sex, is protected by our general unenumerated rights.

Cripes.

[Orangedog]

I don't believe that all of our millitary will go along with it, and that those who expressed any desent would end up stationed in lower Uzbekistan or some other far-flung nether region of the globe.