Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice: Can Constitution Make It In Global Age? (
2003 WorldNetDaily.com ^ | July 7, 2003 | WND

Posted on 07/07/2003 6:09:12 AM PDT by joesnuffy

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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: breyer; constitution; globalism; immigration; justiceoconnor; lawrencevtexas; newworldodor; oneworld; scotus; stephengbreyer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

1 posted on 07/07/2003 6:09:12 AM PDT by joesnuffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy; harpseal; Travis McGee; Squantos; sneakypete; Chapita
Well !#*)(^$^&*$, the bozos are getting brave enought to admit our constitution isn't good enought for the world.


Our constitution is about limiting govenment, not anything else.
2 posted on 07/07/2003 6:32:16 AM PDT by razorback-bert (White Devils for Al-Sharpton 2004... Texas Chapter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Justice Breyer is a jurisprudential moron, and it is dangerous to have such people on the bench. It is not the proper business of the Justices of the Supreme Court to read foreign laws, and then decide what is best for the people of the United States. Writing laws is the business of the Congress and the state legislatures. It is NOT the business of the courts.

And as for whether the Constitution can survive into the future, Breyer is doing the best he can to kill it now. If and when the Constitution should be amended, it provides the methods by which the PEOPLE, not the unelected JUDGES, can make those changes.

Breyer has no clue as to what it means for the US to have a written Cosntitution that is the collective voice of the people of the US. Breyer has principles, which happen to be dead wrong. He cannot be removed from the bench. Therefore he needs to be constantly outnumbered by Justices who DO understand what it means to enforce a written Constitution.

And that brings us to Justice O'Connor. She has no principles. She votes for whatever feels good, which is why she flips back and forth from competent decisions to incompetent ones. For health reasons, she will be gone from the Court not long after McConnell v. FEC (campaign finance case) is argued on September 8th, and decided about two months after that.

If O'Connor is replaced with a Justice who actually understands and respects the Constitution, Breyer will be appropriately isolated. To do that, however, the Republicans in the Senate need to "go nuclear" on the Democrats there, to break forever the application of the filibuster rule to judicial nominees.

IMHO.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, now up FR, "Ah-nold Will Win."

3 posted on 07/07/2003 6:34:10 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob ("Saddam has left the building. Heck, the building has left the building.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
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.

That's quite a leap. I believe this man could leap over the Grand Canyon. I wonder ... had the Third Reich conquered all of Europe, and had the High Court of the Third Reich decreed that all men are not created qual -- would Breyer agree that the concept of equal rights was (therefore) unfounded in the Western Tradition?

4 posted on 07/07/2003 6:39:52 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
What more evidence do we need that this man lacks the understanding to sit on the Supreme Court? Impeach him!

Maybe the next nominee will be Arlen "Scottish Law" Spectere?
5 posted on 07/07/2003 6:45:22 AM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Our Constitution has been repealed.

6 posted on 07/07/2003 6:51:43 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com (Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
If ever there was a reason for the impeachment of a SCOTUS judge, this is it. He took an oath to "support and defend the CONSTITUTION..." yet here he admits that he is conforming it to the mores of the world.

Although we may have disagreed in the past, this makes it very clear that he is actively fighting against our Constitution, not writing simple disagreements on matters of law.
7 posted on 07/07/2003 6:51:44 AM PDT by pgyanke (God help America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
...Impeach him!

Did they find a stained robe or something?

8 posted on 07/07/2003 6:55:25 AM PDT by Lysander (My army can kill your army)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Please, someone with more internet savvy (and connections), forward this to Rush, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, Mark Stein, et al. This has to get A LOT of attention!
9 posted on 07/07/2003 6:56:08 AM PDT by pgyanke (God help America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
Nothing's going to happen.

If anything, his partner in treason O'Connor, will be elevated to Chief justice as a reward for driving the last nails into the coffin.
10 posted on 07/07/2003 6:59:05 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com (Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Every day it becomes more obvious that some on the supreme court not only do not understand their role in government, they do not understand the role of our constitution. I personally am glad that our constitution doesn't fit in with the idea of global governance. The globalists do not recognize the principles of personal rights, private property, or any of the God given "unalienable Rights" that our founders recognized as inseparable parts of the human condition when they pledged their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor" to the cause of fredom 203 years ago..
11 posted on 07/07/2003 6:59:43 AM PDT by m&maz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: m&maz
I agree. I've always said there's a reason we separated ourselves from the rest of the world. For that same reason, the rest of the world wants to come be a part of our nation.

The problem is in the tinpot dictators that comprise most other forms of government. They fear and hate us for what we represent.
12 posted on 07/07/2003 7:05:40 AM PDT by pgyanke (God help America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: m&maz
Here is the real plan, foreshadowed:

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."

According to many (liberal) interpretations treaties, once ratified, become co-equal with the Constitution. It is considerably easier to enter into a treaty that to ammend the Constitution. Thus the liberal plan to destroy the remaining inconvennient parts of the Bill of Rights is to negotiate it away to the UN, World Court or any other body that wants. Once we've signed the "Internataional Accord on the Limitation of Small Arms" the living-breathing types will use the treaty clause to say "this replaces the Second Ammendment".

You can see they are thinking ahead, and setting the stage with the sodomy ruling.

13 posted on 07/07/2003 7:09:53 AM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
You make an excellent point.
14 posted on 07/07/2003 7:20:07 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com (Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head; Travis McGee
scary stuff here.
15 posted on 07/07/2003 7:22:02 AM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
If a justice can page through foreign law and find some tidbit there that overwhelms American law, we are lost. It means that we are entering the era of complete arbitrary and capricious rulings, meaning there is no law. That, of course, is the way of all dictatorships, where the law is whatever I say the law is. People will be arrested and charged with violating laws they didn't know existed. This is how the gulags and camps were filled in totalitarian countries.

We're not about to be shipped out yet, but the signposts are in.
16 posted on 07/07/2003 7:47:58 AM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
If these twits want to look to Europe to see how we should regard the 2nd Amd, they may discover the Rule of Five is trumped by Rule 308.
17 posted on 07/07/2003 7:58:47 AM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert; Joe Brower; Jeff Head; Squantos; harpseal; Beelzebubba; PatrioticAmerican
Scary stuff indeed. Next the SCOTUS will look to Europe for how to rule on the 2nd Amd etc.

This should be topic #1 on Rush, Hannity etc for weeks.

This is no different to me than if these supremes had admitted they were secretly taking orders from Stalin, Hitler etc.

Traitors. Domestic Enemies. If we don't or can't impeach these traitors, there will be hell to pay.

They think they can dictate our laws by the Rule of FIve.

They have not heard of Rule 308, AKA the 2nd Amd.

18 posted on 07/07/2003 8:03:40 AM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Already posted:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/941589/posts
19 posted on 07/07/2003 8:04:15 AM PDT by TheBattman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Rehnquist-78 years old

John Paul Stevens - 82 years old

Sandra Day O'Connor - 72 years of age

Ginsburg- 69 years old

Scalia - 66 years old

Now where did I leave my TV remote ?

Stay Safe !

20 posted on 07/07/2003 9:38:16 AM PDT by Squantos (Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson