Judge looks beyond constitution to international law

Status
Not open for further replies.

NIGHTWATCH

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
870
Location
Ground Zero
Can you say NEW WORLD ORDER? :fire:




Aug 2, 2003



Justice Ginsburg Says Supreme Court Is No Longer "lone-Ranger" in Decision-Making
By Gina Holland
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court is looking beyond America's borders for guidance in handling cases on issues like the death penalty and gay rights, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Saturday.

The justices referred to the findings of foreign courts this summer in their own ruling that states may not punish gay couples for having sex.

And in 2002, the court said that executing mentally retarded people is unconstitutionally cruel. That ruling noted that the practice was opposed internationally.

"Our island or lone ranger mentality is beginning to change," Ginsburg said during a speech to the American Constitution Society, a liberal lawyers group holding its first convention.

Justices "are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives," said Ginsburg, who has supported a more global view of judicial decision making.

Ginsburg cited an international treaty in her vote in June to uphold the use of race in college admissions.

The shift has angered some conservatives. Justice Antonin Scalia, in the gay sex case, wrote with two colleagues that the court should not "impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans."

David Rivkin Jr., a conservative Washington attorney, said foreign trends can be helpful to legislators in setting policy, but not to judges in interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

Last month, Ginsburg and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Breyer discussed the death penalty and terrorism with French President Jacques Chirac during a European tour. France outlawed the death penalty in 1981. Ginsburg was one of five justices who attended a conference on the European constitution.

Ginsburg said Saturday that the Internet is making decisions of courts in other countries more readily available in America, and they should not be ignored.

"While you are the American Constitution Society, your perspective on constitutional law should encompass the world," she told the group of judges, lawyers and students. "We are the losers if we do not both share our experiences with and learn from others."

---

:cuss:
 
So long as the "International guidance" acts to INCREASE personal freedom, and isn't in conflict with the Constitution, I'm not disturbed by this trend.

However, if they try and apply it to the RKBA, they're liable to trigger civil war.

Quotes from the founders frequently mention how they KNEW the nations of Europe prefer a disarmed citizenry; to try and now apply those "foreign preferences" to the US won't fly.

They BETTER not.
 
I would strongly object to any court in the Unite States, including the Supreme Court, making decisions based on influences outside of this country. Foreign laws do not (or at least should not) apply in the United States because what-ever-they-are, they were not enacted by a legislature made up of individuals elected by the American people.

It is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret laws in respect to the Constitution of the United States, not something enacted in some foreign country.

When Mrs. Ginsburg became a Supreme Court Justice she took an oath to “uphold the laws and the Constitution of the United States.†That, and only that is what she should be doing.
 
It just doesn't matter how right the international community may be on an issue or how wrong-headed the Constitution may be. The Court's job is NOT to find the best solution to society's problems or make the best policy. Its role is only to apply the Constitution to the policy made by others.

David Rivkin Jr., a conservative Washington attorney, said foreign trends can be helpful to legislators in setting policy, but not to judges in interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

Which is exactly the point; Ginsburg and her clique see the Supreme Court as another branch of legislators, and themselves as policy makers.
 
I think the Supreme Court justices (at least those of more liberal bent) need to be very carefully watched on this issue. I believe that this is going to be a very serious problem for this country in the future.

It's not just the Supreme Court, however. Unfortunately, there are many treaties internationally that impose standards different from those in our Constitution: and if the Senate ratifies our signature of such a treaty, its obligations become legally binding on Americans, notwithstanding the Constitution. A good example is the international criminal court. Klinton signed this one, but did not submit it to the Senate for ratification, because he knew he'd never get approval from a Republican-controlled Senate. However, his signature is still on that document: and a future Democrat-controlled senate could approve the treaty, if it were submitted to them by a "friendly" President. This would instantly make that court's authority binding on Americans.

If the UN adopts a treaty limiting (or even banning) the private possession of firearms, and if a US President submits it to the Senate for ratification, and it is ratified, it will trump the Second Amendment to the Constitution...
 
I've heard the same thing about how a ratified treaty trumps the constitution.

Can or will those who hold to that view please cite chapter and verse documenting your position?

Not trying to cause trouble, I just want to see the evidence.
 
Waitone, check out...

www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/01-15-2001/vo17no02_treaties.htm

It deals with the prevalent misreading & misunderstanding of The "Supremacy Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, contained in Article VI:

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
 
Listen to left-wing radio (Pacifica) and you'll hear many a
leftist talk about how they see "international treaties" as a vital
tool to overthrow the allegedly sclerotic and antiquated U.S.
Constitution. This came up repeatedly during the anti-Iraq war
protests.
 
"It just doesn't matter how right the international community may be on an issue
or how wrong-headed the Constitution may be. The Court's job is NOT to find the
best solution to society's problems or make the best policy. Its role is only to
apply the Constitution to the policy made by others."

In a nutshell. Well said.
 
It is not the job of the Judiciary to rewrite the consitution. When a member of the Judiciary goes beyond their scope it is time for removal.
 
"Looking for guidance" from foreign courts is one short, hairy step away from "looking for precedence" from foreign courts.

I don't care how right or wrong, how justified or criminal or how noble or base a foreign court decision is, it has no place in American jurisprudence.

LawDog
 
Totally screwed. International law...whatever. This is just picking thru a huge array of legal systems to find something to support their position.

We'll look to Italy for this, France and Canada for that and, hmmm, how 'bout China for this over here.

Yeah that makes alotta sense.

:uhoh:
 
Can Supreme Court Justices be recalled when they totally go out of their prescribed duties? I am not sure, but I would be willing to bet that their charges do not alloow for using international law to interpret the US constitution.
 
International law cannot trump constitutional law. What international law can do is trump domestic law. This is due to the peculiarity of the American legal system, where international treaties are considered to be higher than domestic laws. If the UN passed a resolution saying that private ownership of firearms was illegal then the Supreme Court would be obliged to tell the US to not implement such a law, since it would violate the second amendment. Most other counties do not have such a legal system. This is one reason why some countries are so hot on signing the Kyoto Protocol. This is partly because if they sign the treaty they do not necessarily have to abide by the treaty and then can pollute as much as they want. If the United States signed the Kyoto protocol and they did not abide by it then I would be in my legal right to sue the American Government and force them to abide by the protocol. The article seems to be very poorly written and seems to be talking about many legal nuances that do not necessarily make much sense. Justice Ginsburg was right to look at treaties only if it was a treaty that the US has signed because that would be a law that the US must abide by, but such treaties cannot negate the constitution. If Justice Ginsburg wanted to cite international law that the US has not signed then it would only be a footnote and if I am not mistaken would not hold any legal legitimacy. Also, presidents often sign laws and treaties that they know are doomed to die in the House or the Senate because it looks good to politically powerful people.
 
Justice (and I use that title with her VERY loosely) Ginsberg should whistle for her broom-maybe it will come to her:cuss:
 
This is so wrong. These revisionist judges are a most disgusting bunch. Makes you wonder if they have even ever read the Constitution. Really she and the other liberals on the court who used international court rulings and trends as a basis for their decisions ought to be impeached. But that can't/won't happen especially since the Congress/Executive branches passed and signed into law a blatantly unconstitutional law like CFR.
:barf:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top