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

Skip to comments.

Justice Breyer: U. S. Constitution should be subordinated to international will
WorldNetDaily ^ | July 7, 2003

Posted on 07/07/2003 7:00:07 AM PDT by mrobison

LAW OF THE LAND

Justice: Can Constitution make it in global age?

On TV, Breyer wonders whether it will 'fit into governing documents of other nations'

Posted: July 7, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

In a rare appearance on a television news show, Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer questioned whether the U.S. Constitution, the oldest governing document in use in the world today, will continue to be relevant in an age of globalism.

Speaking with ABC News' "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos and his colleague Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Breyer took issue with Justice Antonin Scalia, who, in a dissent in last month's Texas sodomy ruling, contended the views of foreign jurists are irrelevant under the U.S. Constitution.

Breyer had held that a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that homosexuals had a fundamental right to privacy in their sexual behavior showed that the Supreme Court's earlier decision to the contrary was unfounded in the Western tradition.

"We see all the time, Justice O'Connor and I, and the others, how the world really – it's trite but it's true – is growing together," Breyer said. "Through commerce, through globalization, through the spread of democratic institutions, through immigration to America, it's becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people. And how they're going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think will be a challenge for the next generations."

In the Lawrence v Texas case decided June 26, Justice Anthony Kennedy gave as a reason for overturning a Supreme Court ruling of 17 years earlier upholding sodomy laws that it was devoid of any reliance on the views of a "wider civilization."

Scalia answered in his dissent: "The court's discussion of these foreign views (ignoring, of course, the many countries that have retained criminal prohibitions on sodomy) is ... meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since this court ... should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans," he said quoting the 2002 Foster v. Florida case.

Scalia's scathing critique of the 6-3 sodomy ruling was unusual in its bluntness.

"Today's opinion is the product of a court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct," he wrote. Later he concluded: "This court has taken sides in the culture war."

Both O'Connor and Breyer sought to downplay antipathy between the justices – no matter how contentious matters before the court become. O'Connor said justices don't take harsh criticisms personally.

"When you work in a small group of that size, you have to get along, and so you're not going to let some harsh language, some dissenting opinion, affect a personal relationship," she said. "You can't do that."

Breyer agreed.

"So if I'm really put out by something, I can go to the person who wrote it and say, 'Look, I think you've gone too far here.'"

O'Connor, too, seemed to suggest in the ABC interview that the Constitution was far from the final word in governing America. Asked if there might come a day when it would no longer be the last word on the law, she said: "Well, you always have the power of entering into treaties with other nations which also become part of the law of the land, but I can't see the day when we won't have a constitution in our nation."

Asked to explain what he meant when he said judges who favor a very strict literal interpretation of the Constitution can't justify their practices by claiming that's what the framers wanted, Breyer responded: "I meant that the extent to which the Constitution is flexible is a function of what provisions you're talking about. When you look at the word 'two' for two representatives from every state in the United States Senate, two means two. But when you look like a word – look at a word like 'interstate commerce,' which they didn't have automobiles in mind, or they didn't have airplanes in mind, or telephones, or the Internet, or you look at a word like 'liberty,' and they didn't have in mind at that time the problems of privacy brought about, for example, by the Internet and computers. You realize that the framers intended those words to maintain constant values, but values that would change in their application as society changed."

In an unrelated matter, O'Connor indicated on "This Week" that she would likely serve out the next term on the court, dismssing speculation that she was about to retire.

The current court is split between Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas and Scalia, who tend to hold the traditional constitutionalist approach to rulings, and the majority of O'Connor, Breyer, Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginzburg, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens, who tend to believe in the concept of a "living Constitution" subject to changes in public opinion and interpretation.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: breyer; constitution; constitutionlist; culturewar; globalism; globaloney; impeach; nwo; oconnor; scalia; scotus; scotuslist; sovereigntylist; stephenbreyer; stephengbreyer; traitorlist; transjudicialism; unfit; usconstitution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-580 next last
Retire already!
1 posted on 07/07/2003 7:00:07 AM PDT by mrobison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mrobison
If Breyer really thinks it should soccumb to international will, Breyer should be impeached post haste.

Incredible.
2 posted on 07/07/2003 7:01:48 AM PDT by smith288 (We are but a moon, reflecting the light of the Son.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison; .45MAN
Scalia: Dangerous dicta, however, since this court ... should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans," he said quoting the 2002 Foster v. Florida case.

What part of that doesn't Breyer understand?

Sheesh.

.45MAN PING

3 posted on 07/07/2003 7:02:57 AM PDT by dansangel (America - love it, support it or LEAVE it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
That this man sits on this court and can speak this way is a travesty.
4 posted on 07/07/2003 7:03:17 AM PDT by rep-always
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
This is truly incredible. I am at a loss for words.
5 posted on 07/07/2003 7:04:45 AM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
Can justices be removed from the bench? If any of them feel that the constitution should be subordinate to world opinion then they need to be removed immedialtely and tried for treason.
6 posted on 07/07/2003 7:04:47 AM PDT by Bikers4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
So, in accordance with Breyer's allegience to international concensus, if the World Court decides that there is no right to dissent from liberal orhtodoxy, the first amendment too might be squelched. We know they already have designs on the second amendment. Breyer is an infected sore on the American judiciary.
7 posted on 07/07/2003 7:05:10 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
Impeachment (if that's okay with the Europeans).
8 posted on 07/07/2003 7:06:01 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
Any Supreme Court judge who thinks that way needs to go! This is still the United States of America. I'm not interested in being part of any "global" b.s.
9 posted on 07/07/2003 7:06:23 AM PDT by Spottys Spurs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
He should be impeached.
10 posted on 07/07/2003 7:06:42 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
I'd hate to look into this a$$hole's mind and see what he really thinks if he's willing to make such an absurd statement on national television.

He's admitting that he operates illegally and in violation of his oath of office. Notice how he makes Sandra Day his little buddy. Very scary.
11 posted on 07/07/2003 7:07:11 AM PDT by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
It amazes me that idiots like Breyer and O'Connor can actually get nominated to the lands highest court.
12 posted on 07/07/2003 7:07:34 AM PDT by 1Old Pro (The Dems are self-destructing before our eyes, How Great is That !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison; Torie; AntiGuv; mrsmith; Jhoffa_
"We see all the time, Justice O'Connor and I, and the others, how the world really – it's trite but it's true – is growing together," Breyer said. "Through commerce, through globalization, through the spread of democratic institutions, through immigration to America, it's becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people. And how they're going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think will be a challenge for the next generations

Antiguv, you were saying that the majority in Kennedy was only replying to Burger vis a vis the Europeans.

Think again. This guy should be tarred and feathered, forget impeachment.

He is stating quite clearly that the US Constitution, in his view, will simply become a refernce in a world of more elite references. Cripes.

13 posted on 07/07/2003 7:07:48 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
"We see all the time, Justice O'Connor and I, and the others, how the world really – it's trite but it's true – is growing together," Breyer said.

Bryer would like to buy the World a Coke, and Sprinkle it with Love.

He will be happy when the Anti-Christ is in charge (for awhile anyway). Too bad his guy eventually loses to God.

14 posted on 07/07/2003 7:09:22 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
And jailed.
15 posted on 07/07/2003 7:09:37 AM PDT by Bars4Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: AAABEST
"He's admitting that he operates illegally and in violation of his oath of office. Notice how he makes Sandra Day his little buddy. Very scary."

Jeeze . . .talk about litmus tests. No justices who won't uphold the Constitution!
17 posted on 07/07/2003 7:10:15 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Crom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Torie
This isn't red meat, it's turning my eyeballs red with rage. The more I think about it, the more pissed off I get.
18 posted on 07/07/2003 7:10:20 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
Further proof that at least two justices on the SCOTUS should be impeached immediately. They have both publicly admitted that the Constitution is irrelevant - even though they are sworn to uphold that very same document.

Of course, their view of eh Constitution just strengthens their position of power. If the Constitution is so "flexible" as Sandra Day-O has indicated, then the specific authority placed in the SCOTUS is also flexible - thus allowing them to create law, not just interpret.

If something doesn't give soon, I am afraid the USA as we know it is done for - it's leftist ideas like those expressed by these two that are going to bring us down.
19 posted on 07/07/2003 7:11:33 AM PDT by TheBattman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: mrobison
This is utterly incredible.

I don't know why I thought they would be immune, but it is clear that these judges are intoxicated with power. This is why I DESPISE any judge who is not a strict constructionist. Good grief, even a liberal could be strict constructionist. But these "living Constitution" people are the death of the republic.


BTW, have these guys ever heard of a amending the Constitution?
22 posted on 07/07/2003 7:12:31 AM PDT by Bryan24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
Do Justices take an oath similar to elected officials (and others), containing the "preserve, protect, and defend" wording regarding the Constitution? If so, one could reasonably argue that this particular Justice is treading dangerously close to violating his oath of office, and therefore might be subject to impeachment proceedings.
23 posted on 07/07/2003 7:12:55 AM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2; deadhead
What's your vote, impeachment or tar and feathers?
24 posted on 07/07/2003 7:14:52 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: smith288; sarcasm
Yes, to the will, subordinate everything to the will.

Seems I remember someone saying something like that back in 1941 but I can't recall who it was.

Can anyone help me remember?
25 posted on 07/07/2003 7:15:28 AM PDT by ido_now
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freedomsnotfree
They wouldn't have said this if they didn't think it was too late for us to do anything about it.

Who thinks we'll hear a word about this from the republican party or the White house?

Breyer's probably hoping he'll get promoted to Chief Justice instead of Sandy.
26 posted on 07/07/2003 7:15:34 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com (Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sabretooth
What do you think about the impending subordiantion of the Constitution to the expansive world view?
27 posted on 07/07/2003 7:17:32 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
If Bill Clinton becomes UN Secretary, you can be damn sure the time of the anti-christ will have begun. And look for completely blind, anti-American fools like Breyer to help lead the way.
28 posted on 07/07/2003 7:17:44 AM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rintense
Just think: Bill's legacy could be to oversee the international tribunal that re-writes the Constitution.

Makes me want to puke!
29 posted on 07/07/2003 7:19:40 AM PDT by mrobison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
Maybe he thinks it should be the SCOTUN (Supreme Court of the United Nations)? The guy's a complete IDIOT!!!
30 posted on 07/07/2003 7:21:00 AM PDT by boycott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
Who thinks we'll hear a word about this from the republican party or the White house?

Why should they? It was malcontents like you who supported Peort and gave Clinton the Presidency, letting him appoint Breyer and Ginsburg. And yes Reagan appointed O'Connor, but he also appointed Bork, but Oldsmobile Ted "borked" him. That doesn't really matter since some malcontents on FR were actually glad Kennedy wrecked Bork's nomination.

31 posted on 07/07/2003 7:21:31 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
ONE STEP CLOSER to redeclaring our:

Declaration of Independence

Patriots! Time to sign your name~!
32 posted on 07/07/2003 7:22:00 AM PDT by steplock (, etc, etc,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
Makes me want to do more than puke.
33 posted on 07/07/2003 7:22:05 AM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
I want eveyone to take note of something VERY extraordinary here:

A sitting SCOTUS member went on national TV, with another SCOTUS member who agreed with him, to publicly argue against a postion taken by another SCOTUS member with a dissenting view.

To my recollection, this has NEVER been done before. Breyer is essentially lobbying the public to support the position he took in their majority decision in the sodomy case.

The more I think about this, the more astounded I am.
34 posted on 07/07/2003 7:22:21 AM PDT by Bryan24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
Nice huh?
35 posted on 07/07/2003 7:22:24 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
In the Lawrence v Texas case decided June 26, Justice Anthony Kennedy gave as a reason for overturning a Supreme Court ruling of 17 years earlier upholding sodomy laws that it was devoid of any reliance on the views of a "wider civilization."

Tell me again, tpaine: how are these champions of sodomy going to decide with respect to the RKBA?

These unelected nanny government buttinskis are your heroes, tpaine--not mine.

36 posted on 07/07/2003 7:23:08 AM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dansangel
It's all down hill now !
37 posted on 07/07/2003 7:23:49 AM PDT by .45MAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
Who thinks we'll hear a word about this from the republican party or the White house?

Not I when will have a "New World Order" vision "thing" in the White House.

Many have sworn an oath the defend the Constitution and by God that oath is still valid, and it WILL be defended!!!

38 posted on 07/07/2003 7:24:03 AM PDT by Brian S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

39 posted on 07/07/2003 7:24:53 AM PDT by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
"........whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think will be a challenge for the next generations..........."

One word: FLABBERGASTED

#####################################

Dear Justice Breyer,

What other governing documents do you want us to adapt to? The intellectually stunning composition that is the basis of the dynamo know as Liberia? Maybe you you are thinking of some other country down in Bongo Bongo-land? Or, how about the Narco-Republic of Meh-Hee-Ko? Or one of those honest and stable South America countries?

Rather than consider how our document 'fits into the governing documents of other nations', shouldn't THEY be considering how to adapt THEIR documents to us? Your statement betrays your anti-Americanism.

Sincerely,
Doc

##################################

40 posted on 07/07/2003 7:25:49 AM PDT by DoctorMichael (>>>>>Monday morning brain-freeze<<<<<)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''
41 posted on 07/07/2003 7:25:59 AM PDT by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Oh, it's my fault that these Justices are out of control.

You are a joke.
42 posted on 07/07/2003 7:26:44 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com (Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
I am saving this one. It is unbelievable to see this in public print; these justices are so arrogant as to believe the U.S. Constitution is trending towards irrelevancy in a world more dangerous than at any other time in history.

They need to be spanked, bigtime.
43 posted on 07/07/2003 7:28:10 AM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Not often that one sees "vis a vis" and "cripes" in the same post. :-)
44 posted on 07/07/2003 7:28:44 AM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative (http://c-pol.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry; tpaine
To:Antiguv

From the majority in Lawrence vs Texas

The European Court of Human Rights has followed not Bowers but its own decision in Dudgeon v. United Kingdom. See P. G. & J. H. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 00044787/98, ¶ ;56 (Eur. Ct. H. R., Sept. 25, 2001); Modinos v. Cyprus, 259 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1993); Norris v. Ireland, 142 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1988).

Certainly he did unless the United Kingdom, Cyprus and Ireland are the 51, 52 and 53 states.

He also cited Mary Robinsons amicus brief. Did Burger?

13 posted on 07/03/2003 2:38 PM EDT by jwalsh07

45 posted on 07/07/2003 7:29:21 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
Thanks, the vis a vis comes from my pal Torie, the Cripes is a cleanup of my New York upbringing. LOL
47 posted on 07/07/2003 7:30:36 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
Its the same old crap from Breyer and his twin Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg. Could someone tell me WHY the Republicans didn't filibuster these two world federalist liberals appointed by clinton? -- instead I remember even conservatives in the Senate falling over each other in praising them.
48 posted on 07/07/2003 7:30:47 AM PDT by laconic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
I could just spit.
49 posted on 07/07/2003 7:31:49 AM PDT by ChadGore (Kakkate Koi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
I think its high time we clean that snake pit out. Any federal official can be impeached from office. Breyer seems to feel the COnstitution is an antiquated document. This is an excerpted text from a 1957 Supreme Court Impeachment attempt: Whereas, the Constitution provides in Article I and repeatedly elsewhere in plain, simple words that all legislative powers granted to the United States are vested in the Congress of the United States; and Whereas, a republic is "a government of laws and not of men" in which all laws are established by the people themselves, either by immemorial customs or by their own elected representatives in legislative assemblies established for such purpose; yet, nevertheless, laws established by immemorial customs, (or common law) were not adjusted to and hence were not adopted by the Constitution for the Union, and hence the federal judiciary was given no jurisdiction of such laws. Thus "judicial power" was "extended" by Article III from nothing in the Articles of Confederation to "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" in Article III. "Judicial power" was further "extended" in Article III so as to permit the federal judiciary to try "cases and controversies" depending upon the laws of nations and of states, in certain clearly defined and specified instances; and, Whereas, Article VI of the Constitution plainly provides that nothing except the Constitution itself, laws enacted by Congress in accordance with the Constitution and treaties theretofore existing or which should thereafter be made in accordance with the Constitution, should be the "law of the land" "supreme" over the constitution and laws of the several states; and, Whereas, the usurpation of power by an officer of government is such misconduct as constitutes a misdemeanor within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution, and the promotion of the cause of and shielding adherents to communism is the giving of aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment; and Whereas, the following named Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States under the color of their offices and while purporting to exercise powers vested in them as members of the Supreme Court of the United States have unlawfully usurped the powers of the people to amend the Constitution and have exercised legislative powers vested solely in the Congress, or reserved to the states, or to the people and have given aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States in the manners hereafter specified Fits quite well, doesnt it?
50 posted on 07/07/2003 7:32:42 AM PDT by judicial meanz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-580 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