Federal Court Bases Ruling on International Treaty the U.S. Never Ratified (United Nations)

CNSNews.com ^ | May 06, 2003 | CNSNews.com

[follow the money]

Federal Court Bases Ruling on International Treaty the U.S. Never Ratified

By National Center for Public Policy Research CNSNews.com Special May 06, 2003

(Editor's Note: The following is the 41st of 100 stories regarding government regulation from the book Shattered Dreams, written by the National Center for Public Policy Research. CNSNews.com will publish an additional story each day.)

Don Beharry, a legal alien residing in the U.S., was convicted of robbery in the second degree. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) began deportation proceedings against Beharry under a federal statute requiring the deportation of lawful alien residents who are convicted of aggravated felonies.

The statute does not require a hearing. Beharry, however, tried to avoid deportation by appealing to a provision of the Immigration and Naturalization Act that allows for a deportation waiver if it can be shown that "substantial hardship to a citizen spouse or child" would result. Beharry argued that his deportation would create hardships for his daughter, who is an American citizen.

A federal court in New York ordered the INS to give Beharry a hearing, basing its legal authority on the provisions of several international treaties including the Convention on the Right of the Child. The U.S. Senate, however, never ratified those treaties.

Furthermore, their provisions conflict with federal law. The court determined that customary principles of international law control the interpretation of the U.S. law so that Americans may "reap the benefits of internationally recognized human rights - in the form of greater worldwide stability and respect for people."

Pacific Legal Foundation has filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals after the U.S. Solicitor General's office appealed the lower court's decision.

Both the Foundation and the U.S. Solicitor General are fighting to overturn this decision that effectively gives other nations and private organizations that assist in drafting these international treaties unsupervised power to modify the individual rights of American citizens and to supercede American laws.

It is their contention that these treaties do not apply to U.S. citizens, even if ratified, until the U.S. Congress has written them into law.

[follow the money]

a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.

[Luke]

Maybe it is time to put some judges in jail.

[firewalk]

bttt

[usapatriot28]

It is their contention that these treaties do not apply to U.S. citizens, even if ratified, until the U.S. Congress has written them into law.

Of course they don't. I'm amazed every time I hear about judges that just disregard the law and rule however the hell they want. A treaty is nothing more than an agreement reached with a foreign nation (or nations) it bears NO legal weight whatsoever. It is just a promise of what we are going to do (or not do). Only once laws are passed that reinforce the treaty, does the treaty have any real meaning. .

Any judge that rules on the basis of a treaty and not US law is violating their charge of trust against the United States. We do still make judges take oaths to uphold the Constitution, right? Impeachment proceedings should begin immediatly against this judge.

[Mister Baredog]

A federal court in New York ordered the INS to give Beharry a hearing, basing its legal authority on the provisions of several international treaties including the Convention on the Right of the Child.

Another "Chuckie boy Schumer" judge strikes again. Why, because he "felt" like it would be the "right" thing to do.

[inquest]

*Ahem*

From Article III:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority"

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"

[Ben Ficklin]

It seems very odd that NCPR is publishing this series without any reference to dates or final outcome of the issue.

[unixfox]

Maybe it is time to put some judges in jail.

The penalty for treason is death.

[Dead Corpse]

A federal court in New York ordered the INS to give Beharry a hearing, basing its legal authority on the provisions of several international treaties including the Convention on the Right of the Child. The U.S. Senate, however, never ratified those treaties.

If a judge cannot follow the clear text of the Constitution, nor be trusted to keep up with what treaties the US has subjected itself to, then they should be impeached and kicked off the bench.

[Dead Corpse]

You aren't trying to insinutate that JUDGES are the ones who decide which treaties we are subject to are you? Congress votes on them, the President signs them, judges rule on wheather or not they violate the Constitution.

This judge tried to bypass the legislative and executive branches here. Impeach him, kick him out of the Bar, move on.

[Dead Corpse]

By the way, that would be Article 2, Sec 2, Para 2. Just incase you wanna try and get picky.
Art 2, sec 2, para 2
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

[ThanhPhero]

Treaty be damned! We can deport any alien for any reason. The rest of the world does not have the rights of citizenship in our country. They don't get the vote here either.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[inquest]

Actually I was responding to a specific point raised by another poster. You know the part at the bottom of the post where it says "To" followed by a number? Click on that.

[inquest]

Actually I was responding to a specific point raised by another poster. You know the part at the bottom of the post where it says "To" followed by a number? Click on that.

[roderick]

This judge tried to bypass the legislative and executive branches here. Impeach him, kick him out of the Bar, move on.

Agreed. Abuse of power by judges should be an impeachable offense.

[follow the money]

Annan in historic meeting with Supreme Court &Congress/is believed to be unprecedented.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0c30a81760.htm

[follow the money]

9th Circuit Rules Individuals Have No Right to Bear Arms
SFGate.com (AP) ^ | May 6, 2003 | David Kravets


Posted on 05/06/2003 3:45 PM PDT by Plainsman


A divided federal appeals court on Tuesday declined to reconsider its December ruling that the Second Amendment affords Americans no personal right to own firearms.

The December decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California's law banning certain assault weapons and revived the national gun ownership debate. With Tuesday's action, the nation's largest federal appeals court cleared the way for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never squarely ruled on the issue.

"I'll have this filed by the end of the week, it's already drafted," said attorney Gary Gorski, the attorney who challenged California's ban on 75 high-powered, rapid-fire weapons.

California lawmakers passed the nation's first law banning such weapons in 1989, after a gunman fired a semiautomatic weapon into a Stockton school yard, killing five children and injuring 30.

Following California's lead, several states and the federal government passed similar or more strict bans.

In originally dismissing the bulk of Gorski's challenge, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based appeals court, ruled 2-1 that the Second Amendment was not adopted "to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession."

That December decision was written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, an appointee of President Carter who also signed on with the court's decision in June declaring the Pledge of Allegiance an unconstitutional endorsement of religion when recited in public schools. The pledge case is pending before the high court.

On Tuesday, a majority of the circuit's 25 active judges declined to rehear the case, as Gorski had requested. Only six judges publicly said they wished to reconsider.

Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski urged his colleagues to rehear the case with a panel of 11 judges, arguing that without individual Second Amendment protections, the government could ban the public's only recourse against tyranny.

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed, where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest, where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees," Kozinski wrote in papers released Tuesday.

The court's decision -- which said weapons were properly allowed for the states to maintain militias -- conflicts with a 2001 decision from the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said individuals had a constitutional right to guns.

Reinhardt, appointed in 1980, noted in the December ruling that the Supreme Court's guidance on whether the Second Amendment offers individuals the right to bear arms was "not entirely illuminating." The high court, he said, has never directly said whether the personal right to possess weapons was a constitutional guarantee.

State and federal laws barring assault and other types of weapons are routinely upheld in the courts on grounds that the prohibitions are rational governmental approaches to combat violence. The Second Amendment has had little, if any, impact on those decisions, except in the California case.

Attorney General John Ashcroft has said he believes the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to bear arms, but that the right is not absolute.

In a 2001 memo to federal prosecutors, Ashcroft said the Justice Department "will vigorously enforce and defend existing firearms laws."

Larry Pratt, executive director of the 300,000-member Gun Owners of America, said he wants the Supreme Court to overturn Reinhardt's decision.

"If Judge Reinhardt prevails, the American people could become subjects of the government," Pratt said.

The case is Silveira v. Lockyer, 01-15098.

[madfly]

ping!