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

WorldNetDaily ^ | July 7, 2003

[exmarine]

I greatly fear that what ties the nations you mention together is their fealty to my Reformation-

This is laughable. You actually believe that today's european nations are tied together by reformation principles? Say it isn't so.

[exmarine]

If you can't see the globalist bent in Breyer's comments, then there's nothing more I can say.

[lugsoul]

There is quite a difference between saying someone has a "globalist bent" and claiming outright that he advocates subordinating the Constitution to international will. You still won't point to any statement that indicates the latter. In the absence of such a statement, the point of this thread - as indicated in the headline - is simply made up. If you want to claim simply that he is a "globalist," and then try to draw the implication that because of his "globalist" views he may one day find that the Constitution is subordinate to, say, the U.N. Charter, them make that argument based on whatever evidence of the Justice's views on the matter you may find. But that is quite different from falsely claiming that the Justice himself took this position. The latter type of argument is all too typical at FR, and is wrong whether you agree with the underlying principle or not.

[Modernman]

There are plenty of real issues out there to deal with, without making new ones up.

Very good post. I read the article that started this post and didn't really find the statements by the Justices all that controversial. I think the jist of what they were saying is that as globalization progresses (which it will, despite what Pat Buchanan-esque Paleo-cons and left-wing anti-globalists may hope) we'll be entering an era where the US, and all other countries, will enter into treaties to regulate commerce, intellectual property, cross-border crime etc. I didn't read the article to mean the those treaties will override our Constitution. Rather, I saw the justices as raising issues that our legislatures, courts and international negotiators will all have to consider in the future. The inflammatory article heading made the Justices' comments seem much more controversial than they really were, IMO.

[exmarine]

There is quite a difference between saying someone has a "globalist bent" and claiming outright that he advocates subordinating the Constitution to international will.

You never give up. The comments he made (which I posted)can EASILY and logically be construed as his position on the Constitution vis-a-vis extra-national laws and norms, especially since Breyer voted with the "IMMORAL 6" to strike down the Texas sodomy law. His actions in that ruling match his words in this article. I can only observe this consistency and come to the logical conclusion I came to. On the other hand, only God sees his motive, and he will answer to God for his godless rulings. Aside from that, there is zero doubt that he and other 5 moral relativists in black robes have used their office to take sides in the culture war - clearly that is not a Constitutional function of the SCOTUS. They overstepped their constitutional bounds - one more time. Again, the Congress has the authority to reel in this rogue court and I have written and demanded that they do just that.

[lugsoul]

Okay - Breyer voted in the majority in the Lawrence case = Breyer voted to make the Constitution subordinate to international agreements. Yep, that makes sense, especially since the Lawrence opinion found that the Constitution allows a state to ban homosexual sodomy but that the Constitution is overruled by the ECHR.

My objection is simple. The headline says that Breyer made a statement that he did not make. All of the efforts you can make to advance the claim that he believes that way do not change that simple fact.

[lugsoul]

He clearly said that there will be times when the Constitution will come into conflict with extranational laws and norms. And, in the context of increasing mobility of goods, people, and services, he said this will be a "challenge." For my own edification, please explain where he said that in these conflicts the U.S. Constitution must take a back seat to extranational laws and norms. If it takes logical steps, as you claim, please lay them out. And if you are going to rely on Lawrence, please point out where the Court indicated that the Constitution would compel a different result in the ABSENCE of extranational laws and norms.

[exmarine]

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.

Read that carefully. The "Supreme Court's earlier decision ws unfounded in the Western Tradition." Tell me, what does Western tradition have to do with any ruling by the SCOTUS? NOTHING. So, why is Breyer making a connection between the two? hmmm? To this observer, this statement, coupled with his vote, is proof positive that he feels it his duty to read cultural norms (western or other) into his rulings. Just looking at the ruline ALONE is prima facie evidence that SCOTUS rules according to their ideology and not according to law. They have become a quasi-POLITBURO. A band of black-robed oligarchs and they should be impeached, tarred and feathered and ran out of town on a rail. When did we amend the Constitution to allow for this type of moral legislating? When did God abdicate his moral authority to these reprobates?

[exmarine]

And, in the context of increasing mobility of goods, people, and services, he said this will be a "challenge."

No challenge at all - FOLLOW THE LAW OF THE LAND. Duh.

[LibertyAndJusticeForAll]

Patriotism versus Globalism alert!

At least he has made his intentions clear and out in the open.

[ninenot]

Rats. This was just beginning to be fun.

Sorry. Tried argument and persuasion. I believe it was you who began the insults.

[ninenot]

You oughta look into Catholicism.

L. started the ball rolling and it blossomed (so to speak) with the French Revolution. Edmund Burke saw it clearly, then.

[ninenot]

The EU boys have explicitly refused to mention either God or Christianity as a part of the EU 'constitution.'

You are correct: 'it ain't so.'

[ninenot]

You DO understand that under the Constitution, "treaties" lawfully executed and un-abrogated DO override the Constitution--don't you?

[Diamond]

"Under God"

You can't say that anymore, per future order of the cultural overlords.

Cordially,

[Consort]

Rats. This was just beginning to be fun.

Yeah, if you enjoy losing and are a glutton for punishment.

Sorry.

OK, I accept your apology.

I believe it was you who began the insults.

Go back and review your first post to me and repost it again. Was it Post #356 where you went into the attack mode?

[lugsoul]

Okay - First, Breyer didn't say that. Kennedy did. The statement is incorrect on its face. Second, the statement that the Bowers decision is based in part on "Western tradition" comes from BOWERS. Not Kennedy or Brower. The BOWERS decision said that the Constitution supported upholding the Georgia law because the Georgia law was consistent with "Western tradition." All the Lawrence court did was say, "wait a minute - in Bowers the court claimed basically unanimous Western thought in accord with its decision - we see a number of sources that call that decision in to question."

Even though the statement you quote is inaccurate, let's assume that your conclusion is accurate - Breyer wants to read cultural norms into the Constitution. How do you get from here to "Breyer says Constitution is subordinate to international will?"

[lugsoul]

He didn't say it would be a challenge for the Court. He said it would be a challenge for future generations. And if you don't think it will be, just consider the implications of differences between Supreme Court rulings on copyright law and the way the rest of the world views copyrights. Do you think intellectual property recognizes national boundaries?

[Modernman]

Article VI of the Constitution reads, in pertinent part:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby

This Article states that treaties have the same power to override State laws as do the Constitution and Federal laws. However, this Article doesn't give treaties the power to override the Constitution or Federal laws that are enacted after the treaty is enacted.

[ninenot]

Thanks for your clarification. My error. OTOH, as "supreme law," should we not be quite careful about which treaties we sign??