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.
This is laughable. You actually believe that today's european nations are tied together by reformation principles? Say it isn't so.
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.
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.
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.
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?
No challenge at all - FOLLOW THE LAW OF THE LAND. Duh.
You can't say that anymore, per future order of the cultural overlords.
Cordially,
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?
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?"
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.
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.