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

Skip to comments.

Is Relying On Foreign Law An Impeachable Offense?
Eagle Forum ^ | March 16, 2005 | Phyllis Schlafly

Posted on 03/16/2005 11:19:13 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe

"By what conceivable warrant can nine lawyers presume to be the authoritative conscience of the Nation?" So asked an incredulous Justice Antonin Scalia in response to the latest outrage by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Five activist justices (not even nine) just imposed their personal social preference on every American voter, state legislator, congressman, and juror. Adding insult to injury, the supremacist five used foreign laws, "international opinion," and even an unratified treaty to rationalize overturning more than 200 years of American law and history.

Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Roper v. Simmons is a prime example of liberal judges changing our Constitution based on their judge-invented notion that its meaning is "evolving." He presumed to rewrite the Eighth Amendment.

The murder involved in this case was particularly heinous. Christopher Simmons persuaded a fellow teenager to help him commit a brutal murder after assuring him they could "get away with it" because they were both under age eighteen.

Simmons met his pal at 2 a.m. and they broke into Shirley Crook's home as she slept. Simmons and his fellow teenager bound her hands, covered her eyes with duct tape, put her in her own minivan, and drove to a state park.

There they hog-tied her hands and feet together with electrical wire, wrapped her entire face in duct tape, and threw her body from a railroad trestle into the Meramec River. Mrs. Crook drowned helplessly, and her body was found later by fishermen.

Showing no remorse, Simmons bragged about his killing to his friends, declaring that he did it "because the bitch seen my face." He confessed quickly after his arrest and even agreed to reenact the crime on video.

A jury of his peers listened to his attorney's argument that youthful indiscretion should mitigate punishment; the jury observed Simmons' demeanor at trial and heard from a slew of witnesses. After an exhaustive trial and full consideration of age as a factor, the jury and judge imposed the death sentence as allowed by Missouri law.

The American system allows a jury to recommend life-or-death following due process and the applicable law enacted by the representatives of the people of the state. Nothing in the text or history of the Eighth Amendment denies Missouri juries and state legislatures the right to make this decision.

The Supreme Court's main argument was the "trend" since 1989 that seven countries (Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, Congo, and China) have banned juvenile capital punishment. Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter changed U.S. law so we can follow the lead of those seven countries.

Only four U.S. states have legislated against the juvenile death penalty since 1989 (but none of them was executing juveniles anyway). On the other hand, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia all allow the death penalty for a seventeen-year-old who commits a particularly shocking murder.

The supremacist five claimed that most other countries don't execute seventeen-year-olds. However, most other countries don't have capital punishment at all, so there is no distinction between seventeen- and eighteen-year-olds.

Furthermore, most other countries don't allow jury trials or other Bill of Rights guarantees, so who knows if the accused ever gets what we would call a fair trial? Over 90 percent of jury trials are in the United States, and we certainly don't want to conform to non-jury-trial countries.

The supremacist five must think they can dictate evolution of the meaning of treaties as well as of the text of the Constitution.

They cited the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which our Senate year after year has refused to ratify. They also cited the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which we ratified only with a reservation specifically excluding the matter of juvenile capital punishment.

DC sniper Lee Malvo was seventeen during his infamous killing rampage, so now serial killers like him won't have to worry about the death penalty. The terrorists and the vicious Salvadoran gangs will be able to assign seventeen-year-olds as their hit men so they can "get away with it."

We recall that the Supreme Court ruled in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 that it could not overturnRoe v. Wade because that might undermine "the Court's legitimacy." But in the Simmons case, the Court flatly overturned its own decision about juvenile capital punishment in Stanford v. Kentucky only 16 years ago.

As Justice Scalia pointed out in dissent, the Court's invocation of foreign law is both contrived and disingenuous. The big majority of countries reject U.S.-style abortion on demand, so the supremacist justices conveniently omitted that "international opinion."

Our runaway judiciary is badly in need of restraint by Congress. A good place to start would be a law declaring it an impeachable offense for justices to rely on foreign law in overriding the U.S. Constitution or congressional or state law.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: court; getarope; globalism; judges; justices; ropervsimmons; schlafly; scotus; supreme; supremecourt; transjudicialism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-118 next last

1 posted on 03/16/2005 11:19:14 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

I think bringing foreign laws into play in an American court is actually a capital offense.


2 posted on 03/16/2005 11:21:59 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Is Relying On Foreign Law An Impeachable Offense?

IMO, yes. It clearly violates their oath to uphold OUR Constitution and it's principles in favor of foreign principles.

3 posted on 03/16/2005 11:22:13 AM PST by Dead Corpse (Sooner or later, you have to stand your ground. Whether anyone else does or not. - Michael Badnarik)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

"Is Relying On Foreign Law An Impeachable Offense?"

Nah. Let's bring in Spartan law. Then everyone gets mad.


4 posted on 03/16/2005 11:24:34 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (Be forewarned that watermarks have been added to this tag-line ... [hello?] ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Seriously, yes it's impeachable. Foreign law could result theoretically into manditory abortion, like in China.


5 posted on 03/16/2005 11:27:50 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (Be forewarned that watermarks have been added to this tag-line ... [hello?] ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Phyllis, Phyllis, what you don't understand is that the Court is supposed to have total power over policy, not just legal interpretation. The framers intended America to be run by judicial fiat, not as a representative republic. I'm sure it says so in the Constitution somewhere. Or in 17th century Scottish tort law, or maybe in le code napoleon, or ...
6 posted on 03/16/2005 11:30:32 AM PST by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
They are bound to obey the Supreme Law of the land, the Constitution and the laws, presumably constitutional, that Congress approves.

They have violated the oath and should be removed for cause. But they won't be.

7 posted on 03/16/2005 11:31:18 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Hey, we have a democracy in which instead of 100 million people, only 9 lawyers are allowed to vote. Live with it.


8 posted on 03/16/2005 11:32:40 AM PST by CondorFlight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

If we are going to enact foreign laws in this country than lets castrate rapists and take the hands of thieves and gouge out eyes of spies. Lets do public caning and hanging while we are at it.


9 posted on 03/16/2005 11:33:45 AM PST by SouthernBoyupNorth ("For my wings are made of Tungsten, my flesh of glass and steel..........")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Sure, it's required even. I'm surprised Ron Paul hasn't introduced a bill to do so. I like when he does things like that.
10 posted on 03/16/2005 11:35:02 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight

That is why they are called the Supreme. We out here in the hinderland are just taking up space.


11 posted on 03/16/2005 11:35:31 AM PST by Piquaboy (22 year veteran of the Army, Air Force and Navy, Pray for all our military .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
They are bound to obey the Supreme Law of the land, the Constitution and the laws, presumably constitutional, that Congress approves.

And treaties.
12 posted on 03/16/2005 11:35:55 AM PST by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
It clearly violates their oath to uphold OUR Constitution and it's principles in favor of foreign principles.

Absolutely! It also illustrates that this oath means nothing to the activist Supreme Court Justice. The promise to uphold the Constitution has become just so much symbolic rhetoric to them, and with that, their honor has vanished.

13 posted on 03/16/2005 11:36:04 AM PST by TChris (Lousy homophobic FReeper troll, religious right, VRWC member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Can a supreme court ruling be overturned as unconstitional because it violates our constitution? If so, is there a higher power above the supreme court that could/would issue such a ruling?

I believe the only way to overturn a ruling by the supreme court is to bring up s similar matter again in a separate case.


14 posted on 03/16/2005 11:39:11 AM PST by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
While I am strongly against relying upon or implementing any foreign laws into our Legal System it is not all bad in some carefully selected instances. See link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150589,00.html

15 posted on 03/16/2005 11:39:32 AM PST by drt1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

If the Supreme court makes a decision that is unconstitutional, who calls them on that?


16 posted on 03/16/2005 11:39:53 AM PST by etcetera (No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom, unless he be vigilant in its preservation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Yes, they have violated their oath. But as you say, they will not be impeached. I doubt that a single one of the 435 representatives gave more than 5 seconds thought of actually introducing a bill of impeachment in the House.


17 posted on 03/16/2005 11:40:21 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Foreign laws like ancient Hebrew laws? Yes I do think it is a bad idea.


18 posted on 03/16/2005 11:40:36 AM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
"The practices of other nations, particularly other democracies, can be relevant to determining whether a practice uniform among our people is not merely a historical accident, but rather 'so implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' that it occupies a place not merely in our mores but, text permitting, in our Constitution as well." -- Justice Scalia, Thompson v. Oklahoma 487 U.S. at 868 n.4 (1988)

"[N]ow that constitutional law is solidly grounded in so many countries, it is time that the United States courts begin looking to the decisions of other constitutional courts to aid in their own deliberative process." -- Chief Justice Rhenquist, "Constitutional Courts - Comparative Remarks" (1989)

19 posted on 03/16/2005 11:41:37 AM PST by nyg4168
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SouthernBoyupNorth

I agree with you. If we are going to start enforcing foreign laws in the United States of America why should THEY get to choose which foreign laws are to be enforced!!!


20 posted on 03/16/2005 11:42:05 AM PST by seawolf101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: adorno
Can a supreme court ruling be overturned as unconstitional because it violates our constitution? If so, is there a higher power above the supreme court that could/would issue such a ruling?

We the People. We gave them that power. We can take it away. Impeach them. Petition the new Court to re-hear the case.

21 posted on 03/16/2005 11:43:04 AM PST by Dead Corpse (Sooner or later, you have to stand your ground. Whether anyone else does or not. - Michael Badnarik)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Is Relying On Foreign Law An Impeachable Offense?

I dunno.

Let's ask ol' "Not Proven/Scottish Law" Snarlin' Arlen Spector...

22 posted on 03/16/2005 11:44:47 AM PST by Malacoda (*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ! *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ndt
Foreign laws like ancient Hebrew laws?

So, you're down with the US Supreme Court using current, "progressive", European laws as a basis to overturn state laws enacted by the duly elected representatives of the people of that state?

23 posted on 03/16/2005 11:49:41 AM PST by MichiganConservative (Government IS the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
I am still unclear whether all justices, on assuming office, use the identically same oath...
Does anyone know?

If it is the same one, does anyone know the exact words that the oath contains?

I see the distinct probability that some Supreme Court Justices have repeatedly broken their oath of office, and then added insult to injury in their subsequent explanations.

24 posted on 03/16/2005 11:51:38 AM PST by Publius6961 (The most abundant things in the universe are ignorance, stupidity and hydrogen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
it's hard to see invoking foreign law as upholding the Constitution of the United States. Can someone tell me why we're just sitting around watching this? What is the proper remedy?
25 posted on 03/16/2005 11:51:51 AM PST by the invisib1e hand ("remember, from ashes you came, to ashes you will return.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
It seems that every liberal is trying to see who is the biggest traitor!
26 posted on 03/16/2005 11:54:46 AM PST by mountainlyons (alienated vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichiganConservative

On the contrary what I said was "it is not a good idea" period, no exceptions.


27 posted on 03/16/2005 11:56:41 AM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

This foreign law stuff is merely a pretext; the real "offense" is rendering a decision with which people politically disagree.
28 posted on 03/16/2005 11:56:48 AM PST by Kretek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
I am still unclear whether all justices, on assuming office, use the identically same oath... Does anyone know? If it is the same one, does anyone know the exact words that the oath contains?

Section 3331 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code requires high-ranking officers, including Supreme Court justices, to take this oath: "I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

29 posted on 03/16/2005 11:59:55 AM PST by Between the Lines (True Christianity is the best kept secret around.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
I am a little confused. Our laws are based on Roman law. We created law from Roman law. Blacks law is based on Roman law. Our whole legal system is based on foreign law. I thought this was true from the bingeing of our country?

I am sorry, but what am I missing?

30 posted on 03/16/2005 12:00:09 PM PST by Steve Van Doorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

The only way to prevent activist judges is to hold them accountable. Who would they be accountable to? The people. The constitution was written for the U.S. and hence the people.

Judges can be held accuntable directly by the people voting for or against them. Appointments by the president and governors and approval by the elected officials is not working.

Let the people decide who should be judging them.


31 posted on 03/16/2005 12:00:17 PM PST by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SouthernBoyupNorth

Maybe we should give Sharia law a little try over here. Especially for killers and thieves.


32 posted on 03/16/2005 12:00:30 PM PST by brooklyn dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

No.

Dumb decisions are not impeachable.


33 posted on 03/16/2005 12:01:30 PM PST by Modernman ("Normally, I don't listen to women, or doctors." - Captain Hero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

Steve, no we are based on English Common law. Even though we use many terms from Roman Law it isn't the basis of our law.


34 posted on 03/16/2005 12:02:07 PM PST by brooklyn dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

bingeing = beginning


35 posted on 03/16/2005 12:03:01 PM PST by Steve Van Doorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Piquaboy

If we are going to be rules by the Supremes, maybe Diana Ross and two other bewigged black sistahs can do a more interesting job LOL


36 posted on 03/16/2005 12:04:40 PM PST by brooklyn dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
"a closed small group of unelected men, answerable to no one, deciding the fate of a great nation by the criteria of their own prejudice."

Ronald Reagan speaking of the Soviet Politiboro in 1982

37 posted on 03/16/2005 12:05:01 PM PST by An Old Marine (Freedom isn't Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brooklyn dave
"we are based on English Common law"

that is true.. and where did they get theirs from?

38 posted on 03/16/2005 12:05:23 PM PST by Steve Van Doorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: brooklyn dave

Does your reply mean that you believe roman law did not influence english common law?


39 posted on 03/16/2005 12:06:06 PM PST by bigsigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
I clicked on the link and actually read the majority decision, something Schlafly apparently did not. Before I stopped counting I noted at least 25 citations from prior decisions of the Supreme Court and lower courts that Justice Kennedy used to support the majority ruling. And that was before Justice Kennedy said, "The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions."

So Phyllis is full of crap. The Court did not rely on international law for their decision, but mentioned that law in the course of their majority ruling. The Court, as it should have, relied on precedent from U.S. Supreme Court and lower court rulings. There is nothing to impeach over.

40 posted on 03/16/2005 12:07:04 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ndt

So what basis for law would you like?
Anarchy?


41 posted on 03/16/2005 12:07:17 PM PST by Darksheare (I need to keep painting my wall red or the thing living in it will get out and get us all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: All
YES! (impeached, fired, whatever). I don't want to sound like a fool because I am not an authority on this, but common sense tells me that any judge making decisions for U.S. citizens, should relay only and exclusively on U.S. law.

Anyone deviating from this simple principle should be fired. This is so clear and simple in my mind, that I actully understand it. :)
42 posted on 03/16/2005 12:07:54 PM PST by ElPatriota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe; All
Maybe SCOTUS should have looked at these two instances as well.

Iran's 'desert vampire' executed

N. Korea: First-ever Video of Public Execution Smuggled Out(PHOTOs here; Japan's N-TV to air video)

43 posted on 03/16/2005 12:08:20 PM PST by Arrowhead1952 (TV News and the MSM - - - ROTFLMAO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

NOt to start a side argument, but that would depend on your definition of "anarchy".


44 posted on 03/16/2005 12:11:01 PM PST by Dead Corpse (Sooner or later, you have to stand your ground. Whether anyone else does or not. - Michael Badnarik)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Well, yeah.
It would depend on one's definition of anarchy.


45 posted on 03/16/2005 12:11:49 PM PST by Darksheare (I need to keep painting my wall red or the thing living in it will get out and get us all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
"The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions." Of course not! He wasn't stupid enough to say that it had a direct influence on the decision, even if it did.
46 posted on 03/16/2005 12:12:58 PM PST by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

I really wasn't trying to be flippant. And the differences between prevailing "anarchy" definitions/theories are rather profound.


47 posted on 03/16/2005 12:14:17 PM PST by Dead Corpse (Sooner or later, you have to stand your ground. Whether anyone else does or not. - Michael Badnarik)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: adorno
Of course not! He wasn't stupid enough to say that it had a direct influence on the decision, even if it did.

Sure. The 25+ citations from U.S. cases was just to throw everybody off track, right? </sarcasm>

48 posted on 03/16/2005 12:14:20 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

I know.


49 posted on 03/16/2005 12:14:59 PM PST by Darksheare (I need to keep painting my wall red or the thing living in it will get out and get us all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: etcetera
If the Supreme court makes a decision that is unconstitutional, who calls them on that?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Next question?

50 posted on 03/16/2005 12:15:46 PM PST by Buffalo Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-118 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