Skip to comments.Supreme Court or World Court?
Posted on 11/30/2003 7:01:20 PM PST by hope
Supreme Court or World Court?
On October 28, the Atlanta-based Southern Center for International Studies presented Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day OConnor its World Justice Award. During her acceptance speech, OConnor expressed concern that the High Court has seldom considered foreign laws when reaching important decisions affecting U.S. jurisprudence. She was gratified to note, however, that a few recent decisions may be signaling a change, as the court increasingly acknowledges legal standards set by the "global community."
OConnor approvingly noted that two important Supreme Court decisions in which she concurred were based in part on foreign laws. A 2002 case, Atkins v. Virginia, further undermined capital punishment for heinous crimes by barring the execution of supposedly mentally retarded individuals. And a 2003 case, Lawrence v. Texas, further eroded the moral underpinnings of our culture by striking down Texas anti-sodomy law.
In the latter case, OConnor reminded her audience of internationalists, the court majority relied partly on a series of decisions by European courts. For instance, Justice Anthony Kennedy asserted in his majority decision that "the right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries," and there was no evidence that governmental interest in circumscribing sexual deviancy (which he termed "personal choice") is "somehow more legitimate or urgent" in the U.S. Though OConnors concurring opinion disagreed with some of Kennedys reasoning, it did not take issue with his reliance on foreign laws.
Justice OConnor predicted that, "over time, we will rely increasingly or take notice at least increasingly on international and foreign law in resolving domestic issues." Doing so, she speculated, "may not only enrich our own countrys decisions, I think it may create that all important good impression." More likely, it would further de-Constitutionalize High Court decisions while advancing the collectivist new world order that Justice OConnor appears to embrace.
It does seem to be coming close to the day.
We've lost the home front.
Because the press are for the most part lazy leftists. They don't care if our Constitution get usurped by foreign law, and they don't generally know people who do.
By the way how is your fund raising going for your run to become a real Congressman?
Earlier, the same pompous know-it-alls cited the European Union charter to justify their decision upholding the University of Michigan's racial quota system.
Worse, Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered a speech in which she declared that those who only consulted the U.S. Constitution had a "cowboy mentality" and that they needed to "get with the times."
Ginsburg and Breyer, by the way, were confirmed with the overwhelming support of Republicans. So-called conservative Orin Hatch said Breyer was a "moderate" who believed in judicial self-restraint. Now Breyer is one of the most activist judges of all time.
Conservatives don't seem to know or care about the implications of these recent Supreme Court rulings. These decisions by the liberal-dominated Court are eroding American sovereignty and destroying representative government. Not only has the Court said in decisions like Roe v. Wade that Americans are no longer free to pass their own laws, they are no longer free to elect their own leaders. Conservatives need to summon the courage to impeach rogue judges like Ginsburg; otherwise, we will soon wake up to America under effete European socialists, tinhorn African dictators, and psychotic oil sheiks.
Apparently those who consider our constitution "living and breathing" are correct in their considerations.
I can't tell the DNC and GOP platforms apart anymore.
then it's time to take it back. if you're too old, soldier, then please step back.
For those that do get "involved" who are we to blame? The question is not so easy.
There is many facets to the game that is ultimately rules your future. Highly organized players at work here. The system is in place.She has come out of hiding to take acceptance for her part.
forgive me, I don't know you personally, but there is another thread with something like 1700 posts castigating Hillary Clinton for saying less than that to our troops on the front in this war where they risk their lives.
There is another front that is ideological and domestic and frankly, the soldiers on this front don't really need to hear or read thier countrymen bewailing the loss of the republic and crying doom.
I think we all agree that the situation is critical...beyond critical, if that is possible. So isn't it time to get on one side or the other? There are only two sides here: those who are fighting to win, and those who are fighting to defeat us. The grey area, the whining zone, is getting smaller by the day.
Just do what you can to work toward the restoration of our nation, or die trying, but please, stop moaning. It's bad for moral.
"If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The hope for the foreseeable lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis ... In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than f rom the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."
Richard N. Gardner, in Foreign Affairs (April 1974)
Under the U.N. Gavel
By Sen. Larry E. Craig, R-ID
August 22, 2001
At its founding, the mission of the United Nations, as stated in its charter, was "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." It made no claim to supersede the sovereignty of its member states. Article 2 says that the United Nations "is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members," and it may not "intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state."
Since then, the United Nations has turned the principle of national sovereignty on its head. Through a host of conventions, treaties and conferences, it has intruded into regulation of resources and the economy (for example, treaties on "biological diversity," marine resources and climate change) and family life (hyping phoney liberalism while masculinity is scorned and western manhood is amputated - causing untold grief to the family unit) (conventions on parent-child relations and women in society). It has demanded that countries institute racial quotas and laws against hate crimes and speech (while the U.N. itself can jail someone for 30 years without trial). Recently the United Nations tried to undermine Americans' constitutional right to keep and bear arms (with proposed restrictions on the international sale of small arms).
Fortunately, many of these have been dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate, successive presidents have refused to endorse others, and in any case the United Nations had little power of enforcement. But in 1998, one mechanism of global government (there it is in the Washington Post folks) came to life with the so-called "Rome Statute" establishing a permanent International Criminal Court (and abolishing the Magna Carta in Britain). Once this treaty is ratified by 60 countries, the United Nations will wield judicial power over every individual human being -- even over citizens of countries that haven't joined the court.
While the court's stated mission is dealing with war crimes and crimes against humanity (what about their own crimes against humanity when they committed widespread genocide in the Balkans and East Timor? Dare I say they are hypocrites?) -- which, because there is no appeal from its decisions, only the court will have the right to define -- its mandate could be broadened later. Based on existing U.N. tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, which are models for the International Criminal Court, defendants will have none of the due process rights afforded by the U.S. Constitution, such as trial by jury, confrontation of witnesses or a speedy and public trial (that's a communist court system!).
President Clinton signed the Rome treaty last year, citing U.S. support for existing U.N. war crimes tribunals. Many suppose the court will target only a Slobodan Milosevic or the perpetrators of massacres in Rwanda, or dictators like Iraq's Saddam Hussein. But who knows? To some people, Augusto Pinochet is the man who saved Chile from communism; to others he is a murderer. Who should judge him -- the United Nations or the Chilean people?
In dozens of countries, governments use brutal force against insurgents. Should the United Nations decide whether leaders in Turkey or India should be put in the defendants' dock, and then commit the United States to bring them there? How about Russia's Vladimir Putin, for Chechnya? Or Israel's Ariel Sharon? Can we trust the United Nations with that decision (the more evil these premieres are - the more the U.N. loves them)?
The court's critics rightly cite the danger to U.S. military personnel deployed abroad. Since even one death can be a war crime, a U.S. soldier could be indicted just for doing his duty. But the International Criminal Court also would apply to acts "committed" by any American here at home. The European Union and U.S. domestic opponents consider the death penalty "discriminatory" and "inhumane." Could an American governor face indictment by the court for "crimes against humanity" for signing a death warrant?
Milosevic was delivered to a U.N. court (largely at U.S. insistence) for offences occurring entirely within his own country. Some say the Milosevic precedent doesn't threaten Americans, because the U.S. Constitution protects them. But for Milosevic, we demanded that the Yugoslav Constitution be trashed and the United Nations' authority prevail. Why should the International Criminal Court treat our Constitution any better (they're already destroying the 2nd amendment with their gun grab and the 1st with their phoney 'hate crime' nonsense)?
Instead of trying to "fix" the Rome treaty, the United States must recognize that it is a fundamental threat to American sovereignty. The State Department's participation in the court's preparatory commission is counterproductive. We need to make it clear that we consider the court an illegitimate body, that the United States will never join it and that we will never accept its "jurisdiction" over any U.S. citizen or help to impose it on other countries.