Posted on 10/11/2006 4:35:12 PM PDT by wagglebee
PURCELLVILLE, VA, October 11, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – International law and court decisions will have increasing influence on US Supreme Court and Constitutional analysis, warns an American lawyer Michael Farris, head of the Virginia-based Homeschool Legal Defense Association.
The US Supreme Court will increasingly use international, not domestic, law sources to “help interpret American law, including the US Constitution,” Farris writes.
He quotes the late Justice Rhenquist, considered a conservative, who said, “It is time that the United States courts begin looking to the decisions of other constitutional courts to aid in their own deliberative process.”
Given the direction towards the extreme left and the revival of anti-Christian statism that is the fashion in legal decisions and legislation in Europe, however, Farris says that those who hold to more traditional concepts of rights, particularly parental and family rights, may have reason to worry.
As an advocate for homeschoolers, Farris particularly points to the recent jailing of a homeschooling mother in Germany and the government’s attempt to force children into state schools against their parents’ wishes.
In September, the online news magazine, Brussels Journal, reported that Katherina Plett, a German Baptist in Paderborn, was arrested in her home and charged under a Hitler-era law originally designed to ensure the indoctrination of children into Nazi ideology.
The law is still on the books and was largely ignored until recently when the German government began cracking down on Christian homeschooling families. Katherina Plett’s husband fled with the children to Austria while another family had their children removed by the court for the crime of homeschooling.
These and similar decisions in other countries could, says Farris, become the standard for interpretations of US law by courts. “No one should miss its bigger meaning. The state has the power to demand attendance at government schools so that children may receive indoctrination in today's theories of pluralism.”
In the case of the German homeschoolers, writes Farris, when parents argued for their rights of religious freedom, the European high court declared that “in view of the power of the modern State, it is above all through State teaching that this aim must be realized.”
Farris writes that a specific amendment to the US Constitution is needed to protect the rights of parents from state interference in education choices, “in order to stop the internationalists from using European law to erode our liberty to educate our children outside the orb of state efforts to indoctrinate them in pluralism.”
Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Germany Uses Nazi Era Law to Imprison Mom for Homeschooling; Family Flees to Austria
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06091407.html
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Ping!
Time for an amendment?
Liberal judges. One of so many reasons we cannot afford to sit this one out, and let the RATS win.
THIS is something to fear.
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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.Supreme means supreme and foreign law cannot override our Constitution. It is time to make this application of foreign law nonsense part of the confirmation process. Any candidate justice that wants to undermine Article VI with foreign law should be rejected. Any sitting justice doing so should be impeached.
liberty ping
What do you make of this?
Do you have another link to the 'Constitutional Koan' piece that you wrote too? I recently moved and don't have it anymore. Is this applicable to what you were talking about in it?
We need to follow this.
Where in the Constitution does the United States need permission from a foreign entity for anything?
The problem with the Court is in how it interprets this last sentence. There is a correct way and an incorrect way, a misconstruction.
When the Constitutions refers to itself it makes it clear: "this Constitution." And the sentence above is an ellipsis for "any Thing in the Constitution [of any State] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Any treaty "made under the Authority of United States" should not attempt to amend the Constitution. The Constitution lays out the process for changing itself, and it is not by treaty or by applying foreign law.
Ever since the Roosevelt socialists forced the United Nations on us six decades ago we have adopted the absurd attitude that we need the international community's permission to pursue our national sovereignty -- and it's been downhill ever since.
Very bad.
Hmmmmm, It's coming. God help my children and grandchildern. I'm glad I won't be around to see what's going to become of this country down the road. It was great while it lasted though.
" Supreme means supreme and foreign law cannot override our Constitution. "
Unfortunately, it means whatever the judges say it means.
Which is when the 2nd Amendment kicks in.
Be careful who you vote for Freepers
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.