Supreme Court citing more foreign cases Scalia: Only U.S. views are relevant (Watch Out)

This week, five of the nine justices -- O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg and Breyer -- will be in Florence, Italy, for a forum with foreign judges on a proposed new European constitution

There's A Better Way To Beat The Media Clymers (And You Don't Have To Skate)!

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

Roosevelt was right about multilateralism

Looking to the future, the United States should seriously consider the consequences of a go-it-alone policy that would leave behind the international institutions it has nurtured.

It is worth remembering that just two days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, former US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke not only of winning the war, but also of winning the peace that would follow.

Roosevelt’s purpose was to promote the enactment of rules to govern international behavior and the creation of institutions to foster international cooperation. The United Nations Charter was negotiated and ratified in San Francisco, and a meeting in Bretton Woods set up the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to guide international economic cooperation and investment in reconstruction and development.

Then followed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to foster international commerce, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the creation of NATO, the Marshall Plan and the birth of the European Union. The generous Marshall aid averted the dangers that “hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos” posed to the newly freed nations of Europe, and it helped remake the world.

American and other world leaders in the 1940s and 1950s devoted so much energy and so many resources to building international institutions because they had seen the destruction that results when nations are divided and pursue only their own self-interest. So they sought to create a system anchored in freedom, openness and the rule of law that would support the security and prosperity of all its members.

How well has this system worked? International institutions have fostered a greater convergence of values than has ever before occurred in human history. For the first time, most of the world’s governments are democratic. The multilateral order has also presided over mankind’s greatest period of wealth creation. The impressive economic expansion achieved by the United States and other industrial countries would not have been possible without the multilateral economic system. In the developing world, millions of people have been lifted out of poverty, though much more remains to be done.

Today, however, the international system appears to be in crisis.

Deep disagreements have emerged about how best to combat new threats to international peace and security and how best to preserve and extend prosperity in the world. Contempt for the multilateral system can be seen in the marginalization of the UN, the transatlantic rift, the division in NATO and in the European Union and the current resentment among old friends, neighbors and partners.

The question is this: At the beginning of this new century one marked by unquestionable unipolarity does the US need the multilateral system? The only reasonable answer that can be given is: Yes, all nations, even the most powerful, need the multilateral system. Certainly the weaker members of the international community would prefer to navigate in the international arena according to agreed international rules and by means of institutions in which their voices can be heard and their legitimate interests represented and recognized.

For the United States, the true hyper-power of our era, the case for multilateralism is no less compelling despite being more subtle. Of course, Washington must look after its national interests, but unilateralism may actually undermine those interests. The world in our time may be unipolar, but it is also interdependent.

At this hour of global interdependence, even the mightiest power has limits to its influence, to its capacity to control how others react to its actions. For unipolarity to be more than a moment in history, others must perceive it not as a threat but as a true anchor of peace. Aggressive unipolarity will set the world in search of a different equilibrium, one in which other powers can balance the military strength of the United States. This process would prove tragic and expensive. A world with so much poverty cannot afford another arms race or the conflict it could unleash.

It would be dangerously naive to think that terrorism today’s biggest security concern can be fought single handedly. Combating terrorism requires the support of friends, allies and sometimes adversaries. Besides security, the United States and all countries face other problems that respect no national boundaries, and therefore require global cooperative solutions. Consider global warming, destruction of bio-diversity, depletion of fisheries, ocean pollution, infectious diseases, drug trafficking and human smuggling just to name a few.

Not one of these dire challenges can be met by a nation acting alone. Only through international cooperation can there be any hope of success in combating them.

Equally, in the pursuit of prosperity and the prevention of evils such as international financial crises, recessions and now deflation, international cooperation is vital to success. Economic cooperation is needed now more than ever. There is a danger that the multilateral trading system could become the battleground of unsettled geopolitical disputes, with disastrous consequences.

Some in the unilateralists’ camp are mindful of these arguments. They are ready to concede that the United States must swallow a dose of international cooperation in the pursuit of legitimate national interests. And so they propose to live by double standards. That is an interesting approach, but it does not convince anyone.

Could international cooperation coexist with aggressive unipolarity? A useful multilateral system depends on negotiations, compromises and agreements. None of these can be cultivated in a soil of acrimony and resentment. From that soil only spring the weeds of antagonism, envy and fear weeds that can crowd out inclusive globalization and constructive interdependence.

It is time to stop bashing multilateral institutions. They are no better or worse than what the major powers put into them in terms of leadership, diplomacy and resources. The right way to proceed is not to undermine these institutions but, where needed, to reform them so that they can better serve the good causes of human rights, security, peace and prosperity.

Going forward, this enterprise will require the enlightened rather than the aggressive leadership of the United States. But the pursuit of this endeavor should assuredly be guided by the same vision that Roosevelt outlined in 1941: the vision of a world order founded upon “a cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.” Above all, by the vision of a world order founded upon the essential human freedoms.

Ernesto Zedillo is the director of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization and former president of Mexico. This article is adapted from a speech that he delivered on June 5, 2003, at the 352nd commencement of Harvard University

package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a325b3f5d31.htm
Annan in historic meeting with Supreme Court &Congress/is believed to be unprecedented.http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0c30a81760.htm

And let me tell you, I've read the first couple of rounds of the draft EU constitution posted in various places. It's absolutely chilling.

This is very disturbing. There was a thread about this yesterday, and it was disturbing yesterday, and it's still disturbing today.

Breyer: Foreign Law Trumps
Constitution In U.S. Supreme Court

By
Bob Ellis

Perhaps Judge Breyer, along with co-conspirator Judge Sandra Day O´Connor, felt the need for this rare television appearance because of the growing sentiment for impeachment of judges who cannot or will not uphold their oath to support and protect the U.S. Constitution. Or perhaps in keeping with their recent predisposition to follow the herd in the dictates of pop culture, they just felt the need to get out there and pump up their popularity.

In any event, though his candor is somewhat surprising, the conclusion of Judge Breyer´s statement comes as no real revelation, since we are becoming accustomed to the Supreme Court putting any trendy liberal agenda ahead of the Founders intent for the Constitution. It seems a 1981 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights regarding homosexuality played a significant role in the recent Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas to overturn Texas´ sodomy law. Breyer said that the ruling by the European court showed that the Supreme Court´s prior decision in the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick that upheld state sodomy laws was not founded in Western tradition. Since when did a single ruling from some Euro-Socialist court in the 1980´s become “Western tradition?” What about all the sodomy law and rulings both before and after the swank European one? No problem; we can just ignore those inconvenient ones.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the few in his court who takes the oath of office seriously, is correct in his assertion that the views of foreign courts are irrelevant under the U.S. Constitution. Despite the lust of the globalists to subvert American sovereignty to the barbarians of the world, America is answerable to no other nation or body. We determine how we will live our lives, and by definition we are supposed to do so according to the Constitution; no other nation has a say in how we govern ourselves. I seem to recall that the War of Independence some 200 years ago had something to do with American sovereignty. No wonder the Founders warned against foreign entanglements; they saw them as threats to our sovereignty.

The Supreme Court´s job is not to make sure its rulings are in compliance with those of some foreign nation or coalition of nations. The Supreme Court´s job is not to make sure its rulings meet with the approval of pop culture and politically correct agendas. No, the Supreme Court´s job is to determine if the laws of the United States, and the rulings of lower courts, are in harmony with the United States Constitution. The pathetic state of affairs we now find ourselves in was foretold by John Story (Supreme Court Justice, 1811-1845), who said, “The truth is…the danger is not, that the judges will be too firm in resisting public opinion, and in defence of private rights or public liberties; but, that they will be too ready to yield themselves to the passions, and politics, and prejudices of the day.”

This admission certainly exposes the naiveté or outright attempts at deception of those who are trying to claim Lawrence v. Texas has no bearing on homosexual “marriage.” Guess what? Canada recently made homosexual “marriage” a reality. How long until this rogue Supreme Court decides that Canada´s decision proves our laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman are “not founded in the Western tradition” of the moment?

Our national sovereignty and our stability as a people is being seriously undermined by a group of nine rulers who are appointed and, if beyond the power of impeachment through a lack of will to use it, are unaccountable to the people of the United States. Could we really have sunk so far as to, while rejecting a king in the 18th Century, accept an oligarchy in the 21st Century? I guess that depends on whether the people will rise up and defend their Constitution, or sit in mute inaction as a great nation slides into ruin.

The globalist turd way
Getting ready to administer "world" law

Globalization

Representation without taxation - not to mention the many many foreign countries that still outlaw sodomy. It could be all downhill from here.

And let me tell you, I've read the first couple of rounds of the draft EU constitution posted in various places. It's absolutely chilling.

Understandable..as the EU's inspiriation is straight from the pit of hell.... The US Constitution from a group of strong Christian men...and Christ breathed.. there in lies the difference..though there be many who dispute it... the results of both will speak for themselves

European Union Influenced Supreme Court Sodomy Ruling

NewsMax.com's Fr. Michael Reilly says there may be more than meets the eye behind the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last week in the Texas sodomy case.

As the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Texas' sodomy law continues to generate controversy, Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute reveals a disturbing new element.

The high court used foreign precedents in formulating its decision.

In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy referred to a "Friend of the Court" brief submitted by former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson.

"This Court should not decide in a vacuum whether criminalization of same-sex sodomy between consenting adults violates constitutional guarantees of privacy and equal protection," said Robinson.

"Other nations with similar histories, legal systems, and political cultures have already answered these questions in the affirmative. This Court should pay due respect to these opinions of humankind."

Robinson warned also that "To ignore these precedents virtually ensures that this Court's ruling will generate controversies with the United State's closest global allies."

In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia expressly condemned this apparent reliance on foreign precedent, writing, "Constitutional elements do not spring into existence ... as the Court seems to believe, because foreign nations decriminalize conduct."

Scalia argued that the high court "should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans."

Warns Ruse, "If the Supreme Court continues to be guided by the decisions of the U.N. and the [European Union], U.S. recognition of same-sex marriage could eventually follow suit."

Check out this AMICI CURIAE the Supreme Court accepted. It does not cite any law or precedent on the books in America or anywhere else.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

thanks

I guess that depends on whether the people will rise up and defend their Constitution, or sit in mute inaction as a great nation slides into ruin.

I see more mute inaction between slides these days and since I haven't seen too many rise up I won't hedge my bets.

Long live Scalia. The most brilliant person to be on the Supreme Court in a long, LONG time. And thank GOD that Thomas and Rehnquist actually read and follow the Constitution. May they all live long, and healthy lives.

As for the other six - who the hell knows what they read or where they get their ideas from.

LAW INTSUM

Geeeeeee ... using foreign case law - hmmmm? Sounds like ammunition for an appeal to me ...??