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

Skip to comments.

Clash Over Foreign Law Due in High Court Today
New York Sun ^ | Marxch 28, 2005 | BY LUIZA Ch. SAVAGE

Posted on 03/28/2005 6:33:09 AM PST by odoso

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court will consider today whether American courts are bound by the decisions of the International Court of Justice, a tribunal created by the United Nations and based in The Hague. Senator Cornyn, a Republican of Texas, cited today's case as one impetus for the introduction last week of a resolution in the Senate that would instruct federal courts to avoid looking to international and foreign law when interpreting the federal Constitution. Mr. Cornyn filed one of many friend-of-the court briefs in the case, arguing that the Constitution reserves the power of judicial review to federal judges, and not to "super-supreme courts." The International Court of Justice "suffers from the very evils that the Framers sought to protect the federal judicial system" from; because the judges are elected by the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations, they are apt to "curry favor" with a majority of members of the U.N., he argued. The dispute arises out of an appeal by a Mexican national, Jose Ernesto Medellin, who was sentenced to death by Texas in 1994 for the violent rape and murder of two teenage girls. "There is a serious risk ... that the Court will ignore Texas law, ignore U.S. law, and ignore the U.S. Constitution, and decide in effect that the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court can be overruled by the International Court of Justice," Mr. Cornyn said in a statement. "I am concerned about this trend. Step by step, with every case, the American people may be losing their ability to determine what their criminal laws shall be - losing control to the control of foreign courts and foreign governments," Mr. Cornyn added.

(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; hagueicc; icc; icj; scotus; thehague
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last
Anyone besides me have a problem with relinquishing American sovereignty to international criminals?
1 posted on 03/28/2005 6:33:09 AM PST by odoso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: odoso
Anyone besides me have a problem with relinquishing American sovereignty to international criminals?

What a silly question... :-)

Of course you're all alone! The rest of us don't want to be held in contempt of court.... /sarcasm

Eheh, sometimes I just kill myself.

2 posted on 03/28/2005 6:35:20 AM PST by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: odoso

"... that would instruct federal courts to avoid looking to international and foreign law when interpreting the federal Constitution"

Good heavens! They NEED an instruction to do that???

What happened to WE the PEOPLE, and OUR constitution?

Do the Dutch, the Belgians, the French, the Moroccans,
all have a say in interpreting our constitution???

Have are judges gone totally loony???


3 posted on 03/28/2005 6:36:04 AM PST by CondorFlight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: odoso

If they rule in favor of the Hague, I say we begin impeachment proceedings.


4 posted on 03/28/2005 6:36:27 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: odoso

The future of America will be decided soon by 9 non-elected judges.

I predict, based on the USSC's propensity for following international law, that the Second American Revolution begins shortly thereafter.


5 posted on 03/28/2005 6:36:33 AM PST by clee1 (We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: odoso

I think the Supreme Court's decision on the death penalty for teenaged murders could indicate how they think of "International Law". They love it.


6 posted on 03/28/2005 6:37:38 AM PST by MisterRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: odoso

Uh, YAAAAAA, I have a major problem with that!


7 posted on 03/28/2005 6:39:16 AM PST by tomahawk (http://tomahawkblog.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: clee1

Most Americans care more about "American Idol" than they care about American Jurisprudence.


8 posted on 03/28/2005 6:40:19 AM PST by MisterRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: odoso
...arguing that the Constitution reserves the power of judicial review to federal judges, ...

Did anybody but me look in the Constitution to see where it gives "judicial review" powers to federal judges?

If Cornyn is going to talk about the Constitution he doesn't seem to know his subject very well.

9 posted on 03/28/2005 6:40:46 AM PST by Noachian (To Control the Judiciary The People Must First Control The Congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: odoso

These judges took an oath to uphold OUR Constitution.


10 posted on 03/28/2005 6:41:38 AM PST by Carolinamom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: odoso

BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP!


11 posted on 03/28/2005 6:42:59 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: odoso

I don't know. I don't know all of the ins and outs of this treaty. If we have signed a treaty and agreed to comply with international law, then we should honor our promise. I realize a lot of people disagree, but I think it's important that we keep our word, especially since we demand the same of other nations who sign these types of treaties. If we do not wish to be bound by such promises, then we shouldn't make them.


12 posted on 03/28/2005 6:44:07 AM PST by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom

So did the Senate, the House and the President.

Oaths are worthless these days.


13 posted on 03/28/2005 6:45:00 AM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom
These judges took an oath to uphold OUR Constitution.

Just "which" Constitution is that?

The Supreme Court has unconstitutionally changed our Constitution almost on a yearly basis.

In this respect there have been many Constitutions, so it's not facetious to ask: "Which Constitution is OUR Constitution?"

14 posted on 03/28/2005 6:51:31 AM PST by Noachian (To Control the Judiciary The People Must First Control The Congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MisterRepublican
True....but saying that, it is up to us who watch politics and the courts to do the work to preserve liberty is it not?

I would remind you that during our revolution..the country was divided about in 3rd's. 1/3 of the people were dead set against kicking the British out, 1/3 were for it and 1/3 didn't care..they were watching the equivalent of American Idol in 1776.....and only about 10% took an active part....

15 posted on 03/28/2005 6:51:36 AM PST by B.O. Plenty (Liberalism and islam are terminal.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz

treaties are not absolutes. In fact ALL treaties have out clauses. (the french are NOTORIOUS for making treaties an breaking them in the nuance.)


16 posted on 03/28/2005 6:53:12 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight
Good heavens! They NEED an instruction to do that???

Read Men in Black.

On the good news front, more and more freepers seem disgusted with the Bush Brothers for bending over and grabbing their ankles in front of the judiciary branch.
17 posted on 03/28/2005 6:54:40 AM PST by farmer18th ("The fool says in his heart there is no God.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
If we have signed a treaty and agreed to comply with international law, then we should honor our promise.

Even to the extent of destroying our Freedoms and Rights?

Do you seriously think that America would continue to be America if we take the path of European Socialism?

Someone once said that: "The Constitution wasn't a suicide document". I agree.

18 posted on 03/28/2005 6:57:42 AM PST by Noachian (To Control the Judiciary The People Must First Control The Congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: odoso
You can be guaranteed that Bush will bow to the court if they decide that we have no sovereignty. Anything the Sup. Court says is law and they have the power to create law - just like Mass Supreme Court did and SCOTUS refused to overturn. Bush believes that the brave people protecting our borders are vigilantes and that we should just allow our country to be overrun with criminals and terrorists. Has Bush become the enemy to conservatives? Many would argue that he has Im not sure but am having a hard time defending against other conservatives which see him as an adversary to social reform and American sovereignty.
19 posted on 03/28/2005 7:01:35 AM PST by sasafras (unity not diversity is what made America great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: odoso

The Supreme Court probably won't go for this, as it eats at their power. But the Supreme Court is active in inacting most international law by judicial fiat.


20 posted on 03/28/2005 7:03:58 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 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