I've read this a couple of times now, and I've yet to find the part where he says the USC should be subservient to international agreements. Where is that again?<
The cites from the majority in Lawrence vs Texas have been posted several times on this thread alone. The majority actually cited specific cases of Eurotrash law as partial justification for their decision.
Breyer affirms above that it is his duty to fit the Constitution into international conventions.
Now, be an ideologue if you must but stop pretendting that the majority decision in Lawrence is Constitutionally sound and did not reflect the mores of the Europeans and Mary Robinson becuase it makes you look kinda dim.
"-- 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-
1) The Lawrence opinion referred to foreign sources as an explanation of evolving attitudes towards homosexuality, not as statements of controlling law.
2) You may not believe this, but international treaties ratified by the U.S. ARE the law of the land. I see Breyer talking about having to "fit" them within the Constitution, but I don't see anywhere where he says the Constitution is "subordinate" to such conventions. In other words, your headline is made up.