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 ...
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.
"... 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???
If they rule in favor of the Hague, I say we begin impeachment proceedings.
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.
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.
Uh, YAAAAAA, I have a major problem with that!
Most Americans care more about "American Idol" than they care about American Jurisprudence.
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.
These judges took an oath to uphold OUR Constitution.
BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP!
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.
So did the Senate, the House and the President.
Oaths are worthless these days.
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?"
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....
treaties are not absolutes. In fact ALL treaties have out clauses. (the french are NOTORIOUS for making treaties an breaking them in the nuance.)
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.
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.
Never seen American Jurisprudence. What channel is it on?
Bush has his problems, but defending American sovereignty hasn't been one of them. Pulling out of Kyoto and the International Court are probaly the two biggest reasons Euroweenies first started to hate Bush. Thumbing his nose at the UN concerning Iraq was the icing on the cake.
The Supreme Court will consider today whether American courts are bound by the decisions of the International Court of Justice
If they invalidate the US Constitution by ruling such, they should be removed from the bench for violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution. (yes, I realize they have already have violated their oaths many times over.)
I suppose you believe the federal judiciary is only to pose for purty pitchers? At any rate judicial review was already part of the American legal scene as far back as Rutgers v Weddington, a famous case that Hamilton argued. Since this is true of state legal systems there is no reason to doubt that the Founders meant for the fed court to do the same considering it is the Supreme court. Or were they just kidding about that too?
bump
More and more it's becoming apparent that the SCOTUS needs to be severely curtailed.
Either that or we had better start considering a new form of Federal Government. Preferably one that is so hamstrung that it cannot interfere with personal freedoms regardless of who is in power.
No, you're NOT the only one. By just accepting this case, it appears that the Supreme Court is considering a de facto ratification of a treaty. Seems to violate the Constitution, but why am I not surprised?
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.
If we signed a bad treaty then we should apologize and announce our withdrawal. Can you give me examples where we actually enforce treaties with nations who want to withdraw? Our government leaders have no authority to undermine the Constitution.
No, just a decision by the Congress to actually USE the Constitutional power they have to control the courts. They "do" have that power, but have refused to use it for 200+ years.
They have a lot of power, but even Congress' power is not absolute over the courts. The Constitution requires that there be a Supreme Court, and it also gives the federal courts (which includes the Supreme Court) jurisdiction over matters arising under the laws of the United States, which includes the Constitution. The Congress can deny the courts jurisdiction over some things, but not over others.
Of course, the Congress also controls their budget, and influences the appointment process. But that ain't gonna stop them from ruling in favor of the Hague in this case.
I like your name "just shut up and take it".
It sought of says everything about you doesn't it?
Congress can deny the Court's jurisdiction over pretty much anything they choose. What areas can they NOT overrule jurisdiction on---I'm not aware of any, but admittedly, I haven't invested a lot of time studying this specific issue?
As I read it, that denial of jurisdiction is pretty damned broad.
Only if you understand the concept of "irony" but you can get someone to explain it to you.
The treaty signed by President Nixon and ratified by the Senate in 1969, known as the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, gives foreign nationals the right to contact their countries' representatives, who frequently provide legal and financial assistance, including translation and lawyers.
The treaty's Optional Protocol, which America also ratified, allows states to litigate violations of the treaty before the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
I believe its completely improper for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider foreign law when interpreting the U.S. Constitution. There's simply no authority for that. BUT, that's a completely separate issue from whether we follow the procedures of a treaty we signed and ratified. I'm not sure how that plays out in this case, but this is different from judges relying on international law based on personal whim.
I personally don't believe we should be forever bound by whatever some slippery weasle gets ratified by hook or by crook.
Certainly not clinton or any of his sycophants.
Never forget this little gem he foisted upon America:
*excerpt*
IMPLEMENTATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and bearing in mind the obligations of the United States pursuant to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and other relevant treaties concerned with the protection and promotion of human rights to which the United States is now or may become a party in the future, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Implementation of Human Rights Obligations. (a) It shall be the policy and practice of the Government of the United States, being committed to the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, fully to respect and implement its obligations under the international human rights treaties to which it is a party, including the ICCPR, the CAT, and the CERD.
(b) It shall also be the policy and practice of the Government of the United States to promote respect for international human rights, both in our relationships with all other countries and by working with and strengthening the various international mechanisms for the promotion of human rights, including, inter alia, those of the United Nations, the International Labor Organization, and the Organization of American States.
Sec. 2. Responsibility of Executive Departments and Agencies. (a) All executive departments and agencies (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 101-105, including boards and commissions, and hereinafter referred to collectively as "agency" or "agencies") shall maintain a current awareness of United States international human rights obligations that are relevant to their functions and shall perform such functions so as to respect and implement those obligations fully. The head of each agency shall designate a single contact officer who will be responsible for overall coordination of the implementation of this order. Under this order, all such agencies shall retain their established institutional roles in the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of Federal law and policy.
(b) The heads of agencies shall have lead responsibility, in coordination with other appropriate agencies, for questions concerning implementation of human rights obligations that fall within their respective operating and program responsibilities and authorities or, to the extent that matters do not fall within the operating and program responsibilities and authorities of any agency, that most closely relate to their general areas of concern.
The Constitution says "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and Treaties made..."
This is in the Constitution, which the Congress cannot by itself overrule. On the other hand, Congress does have some powers that to some degree vitiate the above grant. In particular, Congress can abolish all the federal courts except the Supreme Court, and if it does, then it effectively denies the Supreme Court jurisdiction over cases in which it has only appellate jurisdiction.
Just reading it a moment ago, it looks like the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over all cases involving ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State is a party. The rest, it has only appellate jurisdiction over.
I'm not sure off the top of my head whether "public ministers" might basically give the Court original juridiction over virtually anything the government does. "State is a party," could be broad, depending on if a State were to file an action with the Court. One thing about the judicial power is that they can't do anything at all unless someone files a case.
So when the SCOTUS favors the U.N. today, can we start the Revolution of Secesssion ??????????? Time to end the system and start fresh, the way the Constitution was ORIGINALLY written.
I wish I could say I'm optimistic, but I'm not.
I think you need to read a little further:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
That last clause seems to give Congress GREAT power over the areas the courts can rule over.
I said they have great power, so I agree with that, and I read that clause. However, it only affects cases other than those involving ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, and the states (which could be broad, depending on how that is interpreted), and here's the kicker--it only affects the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, not that of the lesser courts. Of course, as I mentioned, the Congress can abolish the lower courts altogether, but that is a pretty drastic thing to do in order to deny jurisdiction over Terri Schiavo's case. Besides, I would point out to you that in this case, the Congress was trying to GIVE jurisdiction to the federal courts, not deny it.
Sorry, man.... I forgot we weren't talking about Schiavo on this thread. I'm on too many threads at once.
I disagree. I read it as applying to "all other cases", including those mentioned in the preceding section.
I don't see how you get that, but we may be arguing about nothing. The Congress clearly has a great deal of power over them, but as you point out, they don't use the power they've got.
Are you sure you read the entire article? I think you are mischaracterizing the issue. Consider the following paragraph:
The treaty signed by President Nixon and ratified by the Senate in 1969, known as the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, gives foreign nationals the right to contact their countries' representatives, who frequently provide legal and financial assistance, including translation and lawyers.
The Federal Government legally agreed to these rights for foreign nationals, in part so that US personnel in foreign countries could have the same rights. Any Texas law that conflicted with these provisions should have been declared null and void, just as any State law that conflicts with a consitutional Federal Law should be considered null and void.
So, this does not appear to me to be a "sovereignty issue" - the "sovereignty issue" was settled when the Treaty was legally ratified. Instead, it appears to be a "Treaty conflict issue" - a conflict between a Treaty, legally ratified, and a State Law. If Texas didn't conform to this Treaty, their laws should be changed, and the people who were denied access to their Nation's representatives should have the legal process rewound to the point where the denial occurred, and then let the process proceed again (e.g., retried, this time with access to their Nation's representatives).
If there are problems, it is not the fault of the Courts, it is the fault of the Texas Legislature and Texas Law Enforcement for not following the provisions of the Treaty.
Otherwise, next time you are visiting Mexico, and something bad happens, you can have your butt thrown into a Mexican Jail and not allowed to contact the US Embassy to get help. Do you really want that???
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.