Scalia Skeptical About Foreign Law in U.S.

Yahoo! News ^ | 4/2/04 | Anne Gearan - AP

[NormsRevenge]

WASHINGTON - Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) said Friday his colleagues on the Supreme Court will probably go on referring to foreign court decisions in their rulings on U.S. law but that doesn't make it right.

Scalia generally opposes a greater role and influence for international law in American courts.

While that view made him an unusual choice to speak to the American Society of International Law, Scalia said he welcomes the opportunity to engage his critics.

"It is my view that modern foreign legal material can never be relevant to any interpretation of, that is to say, to the meaning of the U.S. Constitution," Scalia told the group.

Scalia said the modern court's reliance on legal rulings overseas traces at least as far back as 1958 and has been applied inconsistently. Sometimes the court seems very taken with rulings from other countries, and sometimes sweeps them aside as unimportant, Scalia said.

The only consistent way to interpret American law is to stick to the original meaning of the Constitution, Scalia said.

"We have no authority to look around and say `Wow, things have changed,'" he said.

Scalia is the most vocal critic of an emerging trend among his colleagues on the high court to note international views in the court's rulings.

Scalia told the law group much the same thing he has said in recent opinions.

For example, Scalia complained when a majority of the court found a "national consensus" against executing the mentally retarded, and banned the practice. The majority had noted strong international opposition to the executions.

"The prize for the courts Most Feeble Effort to fabricate 'national consensus' must go to its appeal (deservedly relegated to a footnote) to the views of assorted professional and religious organizations, members of the so-called 'world community,' and respondents to opinion polls," Scalia wrote in a dissent in that 2002 case.

He said the practices of other countries are irrelevant because their constitutions are not at issue. International "notions of justice are (thankfully) not always those of our people," Scalia wrote then.

Scalia dissented again in last year's ruling decriminalizing gay sex. The majority ruling referred to the findings of foreign courts.

The Supreme Court should not "impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans," Scalia wrote then.

Justice Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) holds a nearly opposite view, and increasingly incorporates international viewpoints and legal references in his speeches and court opinions. He spoke to the same international law conference last year. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) has also spoken approvingly of the court's recent efforts to look beyond U.S. borders.

___

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

America Society of International Law: http://www.asil.org/

[NormsRevenge]

The only consistent way to interpret American law is to stick to the original meaning of the Constitution, Scalia said.

"We have no authority to look around and say `Wow, things have changed,'" he said.

[Support Free Republic]

Do these guys look happy at the possibility SHE might someday be their Commander in Chief?	Help keep "Wonder Vermin" and her type out of the White House!!!
	Support Free Republic!   Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-- Found in the breaking news sidebar!

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Exactly where the hell is it in the US Constitution where it is defined that foriegn laws should be considered in interpreting the US Constitution? This is absolutely crazy!

[Finalapproach29er]

Its Treason. Get used to it.

[Unam Sanctam]

"It is my view that modern foreign legal material can never be relevant to any interpretation of, that is to say, to the meaning of the U.S. Constitution," Scalia told the group.

Gosh, how in Heaven's name can we get more Scalias on to the court past the obstructionist Dems?

[Namyak]

Short answer, we can't. Anyone even remotely like Scalia would be lambasted by democrats and the liberal press as a racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic Neanderthal whose going to take away all your rights, especially your God-given right to kill your unborn child... The Supreme Court is going to be last branch of government we're going to be able to take back. We've made a lot of progress in the last 4 years, but we have a lot farther to go until we've won.

[csn vinnie]

I agree with Justice Scalia overall, but I can see two situations in which foreign law might be relevant: First, in the case of a law passed with express consideration of foreign trade or other foreign law. This will most likely be a statute, since our Constitution has not been recently amended, but a treaty rises to the level of the supreme law of the land, if duly ratified.

The second case is a negative. Our Founding Fathers took great care to distinguish our country from Europe and not to follow in Europe's erroneous footsteps. Thus, one could argue that if the Euros have a tradition of doing something, the presumption is that we should not follow it. (I am here distinguishing contintental Europe from England, which gave us our common law traditions.) The prime example, of course, is the Second Amendment, which was adopted with the recognition that European governments had histories of forbidding arms to their citizens.

Cousin Vinnie

[GeronL]

The only consistent way to interpret American law is to stick to the original meaning of the Constitution, Scalia said.

Scalia is dead on.

[Ken H]

From 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.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[NormsRevenge]

The Next Chief Justice has spoken. ;-]

[GeronL]

This international law business drives me nuts. They are supposed to rule on the Constitution. Thats it.

[Ken in Eastman]

What is the excuse for using foreign laws? Do our liberal justices believe that other laws or constitutions are better than our own? Most of them begin with the assumption that rights are derived from individuals.

Sadly, if rights are derived from individuals -- even ancestors -- then other individuals can legitimately strip those rights.

The US Constitution is based on the same assumptions Jefferson used in the Declaration of Independence: "we are endowed by Our Creator with certain inalienable rights . . ." Simply put, we cannot be separated from our God-given rights and retain our humanity.

Because these rights come from an unimpeachable source, a source greater than individuals or a mass of humanity, they can never be denied citizens. We do not have those same assurances from other lands or their laws. What a sad day when we would rely on inferior laws with inferior assumptions about mankind simply to reinforce the argument of a liberal justice.

May God help us all, for we have surely failed to help ourselves.

[America's Resolve]

Why set precedent when you can follow it?

A sad state of affairs.

[Texasforever]

I want the USSC to be more that "skeptical" I want it to be downright hostile to the idea.

[greasepaint]

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court........
..........
about this, what do people not understand?

[SevenDaysInMay]

All blackrobes owe their career existance especially lawful authority over anyone solely to our Law of OUR Land, our RATIFIED Constitution. Those who choose to rule us with agenda motivated fiat by assault gavel beyond lawful basis are troublesome outlaws acting under color of law, official misconduct, the lack of "good behavior", their Constitutionally determined term of office.

No blackrobe in SCOTUS or inferiors, Congress, or president has any lawful authority to disregard or violate our ratified Constitution. The blackrobes' creative debating clubs seem to enjoy talking about how dominating their contrivances can be, but they tread on thin ice AND We the People and the several states as they rule our Ratified Constitution does not mean what it says it means. They reintrepret our "living" Constitution - derad on arrival because our ratified Constitrution means what it says. Federal blackrobes citing foreign law and social trends to nullify our Ratified Constitution is IMO sedition if not treason, not "good behavior" required in their temporary employment. Terms for life is jusy another contrived dogma created by the blackrobes for the blackrobes.

Socialists and the Beltway fascists believe that nullifying the only Law of OUR Land is self-rewarding. It has been for 70 years. FDR's commie motivated federalists were at war with their Constitutional constraints. One of their first acts was to register and limit through taxation some "arms" long affirmed by our 2nd Amendment. The elected conservatives have betrayed our Constitutional Reublic as career moves. Millions of us mere citizens have sworn to defend our (ratified) Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic; our enemies seem ever more eager to be enemies of our ratified Constitution to enhance their own political powers of the State over mere citizens.

That includes blackrobes who are actively and passively bastardizing and for 40 critical years nullifying clauses and Amendments which they find inconvenient and block their concentration of power over us. Unrestrained police powers and social engineering in flagrant violation of our ratified Constitution is as common as it is unlawful.

The Court contrived dogma of "Compelling State interests" protected by "sovereign immunity" can never be lawful bases to violate our ratified Constitution because that fiat approach is suspension of our Constitution one step at a time, the slow boil. Neither "Compelling State interests" nor "sovereign immunity" is granted our federal government in our ratified Constitution, these and many other "doctrines" undermining our Constitution are constructs of our Judicial branch, also existing solely because of our ratified Constitution. I see these dogmas as cancerous Marbury v Madison power usurpations by a borged seat of absolutist POWER for the government, of the government, and by the government, dismissing the only bilateral social contract which allows them any lawful authority at all.

Over 70 years, our rulers' unConstitutional executive orders and statutes with supportive and dogmatic Rulings must be understood to be darings and declarations of war against our Constitutional Republic. Government unrestrained by the very legal document which created it is not our republican government. A SCOTUS blackrobe said some 60 y.o. that our Constitution is not a suicide pact, however - WHY are these officious blackrobes allowed to kill it one RULING after another?

Scalia of all people should realize that his 8 colleagues and their inferiors too often act without basis in our law assaulting We the People. To name but a very few: O'Conner wrote that our 14th's "equal protection" is to be suspended for at least another 20 years, two generations of unConstitutional "affirmative action", aka reverse racist discrimination, for a social payback. The 9th Circuit is in open rebellion with our ratified Constitution. The 5th Circuit has just ruled that police do not need search warrants to storm into homes 'if they feel that they may be at risk', = 4th's limits to the police state means nothing under the Rule of these assault gavels. Our 5th's "takings" protection has been nullified by Rehnquist's SCOTUS allowing "asset forfeiture" enriching cops - 'cops' theft by accusation, so sue me' - and condemnation of private property to force a sale, below the price at which the condemned would be willing, to the jurisdiction's preferred private enterprise interests: that is fascsim, corrupt socialism with the jurisdiction disrupting lawful owners' lives in order to take a cut of the action in cash through taxes - a favored few are more equal than mere citizens. Campaign Finance Reform has been passed by Congress, sign by G.W. Bush, and then ruled by SCOTUS mocking and nullify our unalienable free political speech affirmed in our 1st Article of our Bill of Rights. The 9th and 10th were ruled to mean nothing to federals long ago. Our 2nd is targetted, but that is known to be explosive for all because too many millions of citizens know what our 2nd means, not willing to accept a "living" reinterpretation favoring the police powers of the State.

We citizens exercise our rights granted by God, only affirmed by our ratified Constitution's Bill of Rights et al. The lawful powers of our federal government are limited and specified by our Ratified Constitution, only by the consent of We the People and through our several states. We know our enemies and they shall fear tens of millions of us as we can eventually hold them to their temporary limited powers as determined in our RATIFIED Constitution, the SUPREME Law of OUR Land.

No SCOTUS Ruling, Act of Congress, or presidential Executive Order is lawful when it conflicts with or undermines our RATIFIED Constitution. Those people who so rule are enemies of our Constitution and We the People.

Even in this dangerous and sorrowful time of permanent islamist koran commanded war crimes Terror War, FLEOs, our active military with reserves, et al. must soon decide if they are to honor their own sworn oaths of office to protect our (ratified) Constitutiuon or if they are simply cashing pay checks enjoying authority with the above the law status shielded by "soveriegn immunity" as neo-pretorians protecting career rogue Beltway outlaws such as Bill and Hillary Clinton and their nomenclatura and coprophage Clintonazi apparatchiks in and out of government, blackrobes: all acting under color of law, the worst kind of official misconduct.

IMHO, this Constitutional Republic cannot long withstand the institutionalized criminally corrupt intentions of those Hellbent to be kings inside our halls of power. Without our ratified Constitution in effect, they are but bullies and tyrants.

[B4Ranch]

A well said opinion.

[Enduring Freedom]

The only way to get the Supreme Court back on track defending American values is to eliminate the DemocRAT Enemy Within America.

Do your part.

Ridicule and destroy the Socialists at every opportunity.

They have turned their backs on America - show them the back of your hand.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"Short answer, we can't. Anyone even remotely like Scalia would be lambasted by democrats and the liberal press as a racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic Neanderthal whose going to take away all your rights, especially your God-given right to kill your unborn child... The Supreme Court is going to be last branch of government we're going to be able to take back. We've made a lot of progress in the last 4 years, but we have a lot farther to go until we've won."

I completely disagree. 60 votes is all it will take. Which means it is up to the citizens of this country, the ones that believe in democracy and the constitution to elect similiar minded people for the Senate.

Pretty simple.

[MrBallroom]

Vote the sons-of-bitches out - that's how! Any more questions?