ACLU And International Law
Posted on July 31, 2005
On its site, the ACLU, while talking about the Supreme Courts decisions in 2004, has this to say: “the Justices seemed less anxious to undermine meaningful civil rights enforcement, more skeptical about the death penalty, and more willing to look at international law for whatever guidance it can provide in resolving fundamental human rights issues.”
This trend of using international law instead of the US Constitution is deeply troubling. It smells of another step toward the relinquishing of American sovereignty to globalized socialism and meddling corrupt institutions like the UN.
The founding fathers were extremely sensitive to outside interference. President George Washington was horrified by the excesses of the French Revolution and became enraged at the tactics of Edmond Genet, the French minister in the US. Genet, while trying to gain support from the Jeffersonian Republicans, was outfitting privateers and enlisting soldiers to wage war against the Spanish in North America. Washington had him recalled and Genet begged for asylum because he feared for his life if he returned to France.
I find it hard to believe that the father of our country would condone using foreign political philosophy to interpret our constitutional liberties.
The ACLU now lives in fear that the approval of John Roberts to the Supreme Court will reverse the perverting of our judicial system. They worry their agenda of social engineering through the courts, so repulsive to the majority of Americans, will be stymied in the coming months.
If, indeed, this appointment puts the brakes on our nation’s race to ruin, it will not be the end. The American people must remain alert and vigilant and brook no compromise when dealing with the subversives among us.
If you want to see a sample of what international law could do to our country, just take a look the American Society for International Law and its loonies. The Jawa Report has an excellent example of the moonbattiness of this organization. Our judges should strictly interpret OUR Constitution, and not that of another Country, or some international law. I don’t know about you folks, but I enjoy being a soverign nation.
Thanks Indepundit, and Outside The Beltway and Mudville Gazette
» Filed Under Communism
Trackback URL
Comments
16 Responses to “ACLU And International Law”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
This is sadly true. I watched a debate between Scalia and, was it Ginsburg? Anyway, the debate was about just this. The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret OUR constitution. There is no place for international law in these interpretations. I pray this trend ceases….I fear it will not.
“The founding fathers were extremely sensitive to outside interference.”
Thats a fact… Washington said in his farewell address ***Warning against the party system. “It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the
Public Administration….agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one….against another….it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption…thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”
He went on to say…”Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?”
And… “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world…”
“…….the name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism…”
I wonder how many times he has rolled over in his grave?
Good post Bob!
How am I supposed to follow a comment as eliquent as lobo’s? Well, all I have to say is, keep French legal philosophy out of my country.
Thanks lobo for making me look stupid…
Wasn’t me Goose…it was George! And you don’t look stupid, I happen to agree with you.
Isn’t this concern about acknoweldging other nation’s options just a little over-blown?
If the Supreme Court of Missouri acknowledges a ruling from the Supreme Court of Illinois, does that suggest that Missouri has surrendered its sovereignty to Illinois? This sort of citation happens all the time.
Last I checked, our nation began on July 4, 1776, when a bunch of guys drafted a document acknowledging “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind….” Were the Founders suggestion that the US was subordinate to those opinions? No. Decent respect, that’s all.
Sure, Washington was appalled by the excesses of the French Revolution. Hell, the FRENCH were appalled by the excesses of the French Revolution. I doubt that deters French courts today from citing French precedent regarding the interpretation of the International Convention on the Rights of Children. Or citing the precedent of any other nation, either.
Similarly, the French may be appalled by American slavery. Aren’t we all? Should that discourage American courts from citing American precedent? (”How could we possibly quote decisions from such a barbaric people as the French? Or ourselves?”)
Treaties like NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, and potential treaties like CAFTA, the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court have real potential to bind this country. Like’m or hate’m, they are a real cause for concern. On the other hand, life is too short to worry about whether the Supreme Court acknowledges that Canada, like the US, issues parking tickets. There are enough real threats to sovereignty that we don’t need to hunt for symbolic ones.
nobody…
“Isn’t this concern about acknoweldging other nation’s options just a little over-blown?”
Acknowledging and adopting are two different things. All of the foreign precedents sited by SCOTUS,such as Lawrence Vs. Texas, were from Socialists countries. Supreme Court Justices citing foreign law in their decisions is unconstitutional, plain and simple.
“I doubt that deters French courts today from citing French precedent regarding the interpretation of the International Convention on the Rights of Children. Or citing the precedent of any other nation, either.”
Who gives a flip what the French think or do? and just what does that have to do with our laws and Constitution?
“There are enough real threats to sovereignty that we don’t need to hunt for symbolic ones.”
Symbolic ones? Just what are you talking about?
“Who gives a flip what the French think or do? and just what does that have to do with our laws and Constitution?”
Nothing. Just like the law of Illinois has nothing to do with the law of Missouri. But Missouri courts cite Illinois precedents all the time, and visa versa. (And, heck, most states seem to have surrendered the realm of corporate law entirely to Delaware precedent simply because the law is so well developed there.) Why are international citations such a big deal but not interstate citations?
“Acknowledging and adopting are two different things.”
Great; please elaborate. How can a US court acknowledge a foreign decision without adopting it?
For example, suppose you are a judge ruling on the question of whether a government’s police powers include the right to issue parking tickets. You conclude that it does.
You start by saying “Even Canadian courts have upheld the practice of issuing parking tickets.” What would you say next? Specifically, in order to avoid “adopting” Canadian law, are you compelled to conclude that American law must reject the use of parking tickets? Or is there some way to both “acknowledge” the rulings of a foreign court AND reach the same conclusion as a foreign court without “adopting” the ruling of the foreign court?
“Great; please elaborate. How can a US court acknowledge a foreign decision without adopting it?”
The same way the Liberal ya-hoos in SCOTUS should have ruled in Lawrence Vs. Texas.
They couldn’t find anything in the Constitution, nor even one precedent, that would support their opinion, so they went outside the Constitution and used foreign law.
Not only did they acknowledge the foreign Courts, they unconstitutionally adopted it.
” Why are international citations such a big deal but not interstate citations?”
Because we live in a Republic under a Federal Constituion. They don’t operate under a Republican form of Government and we don’t operate under a Socialist or Communist form of Government (not yet anyway).
Why can’t you put Volkswagon wheels on a Chevy pickup?
Citing laws from outside the U.S. is dangerous. Exceptions are when dealing with treaty disputes, or citing British common law, when seeking the original intent of the U.S. Constitution (This would be helpful regarding the establishment clause). As I’ve said elsewhere, any judge that cites a foreign law or legal ruling in a purely domestic case should be impeached for violating their oath of office. Let’s see this from an extreme perspective: what if the court justified cutting off the hands of prisoners at GITMO, citing laws in many Islamic nations? Far-fetched, for sure, but no more legal than what is already being done by justices in the SCOTUS.
PS to Jay: I think that debate was between Scalia and Breyer.
“[Courts may cite foreign sources] when dealing with treaty disputes, or citing British common law when seeking the original intent of the U.S. Constitution….”
Agreed.
“[A]ny judge that cites a foreign law or legal ruling in a purely domestic case should be impeached for violating their oath of office. Let’s see this from an extreme perspective: what if the court justified cutting off the hands of prisoners at GITMO, citing laws in many Islamic nations?”
Good illustration. Let’s compare three judges: Judge A justifies cutting off prisoner hands citing the law of Islamic nations. Judge B justifies cutting off hands by mis-applying US law. Judge C justifies cutting off hands without any rationale whatsoever. Why does Judge A provoke you, but not Judge B or C?
The problem with cutting off hands is, presumably, it violates our Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Period. So Judge A, B and C are equally wrong. The fact that one got it wrong while quoting foreign sources and the others got it wrong without quoting foreign sources is irrelevant. Honestly, guys, if the SCOTUS had rendered the same decision in Lawrence v. Texas while omitting the foreign citations, would we suddenly think is was a brilliant decision?
Let’s get back to the prisoner. He appeals. Appellate Judge X overrules the lower court, citing the US Constitution, the laws of other nations, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and Shakespeare. Appellate Judge Y concurs, citing the Constitution. Is Judge X’s decision automatically wrong because he quoted foreign sources? And if it is automatically wrong, what does that say about Judge Y’s decision agreeing with X?
Judges speak about ideas, and if a judge thinks that someone expressed an idea well in the past, the judge may be inclined to cite it. They may cite the OED. They may cite Shakespeare. And, yes, they may cite foreign laws and decisions. That doesn’t mean that the judges are CONTROLLED by the OED, or by Shakespeare, or by foreign law. The fact that all these sources may have been written on foreign soil should not prohibit a judge from quoting them.
After all, most of us (with the exception of the Mormons?) acknowledge that the Bible is not an American book, and that the Laws of the Israelites have not been adopted into the US Code. Are you proposing that we impeach any judge who quotes the 10 Commandments?
DUH: There is no US law that allows cutting off of hands as punishment. Hypothetically, I’d side with Judge C, who did it without rationale, probably out of exasperation with a serial thief who truly destroyed other people’s lives repeatedly. The rest of your comments are totally off-point.
They don’t get to cite any old thing that happens to represent a fact. They can cite facts, but only as related to the case at hand. This is exactly my point. Judges should not traffic in ideas, when they don’t know what ideas were in the heads of the people involved in the case.
I could pick three or four different reasonings why a person might or might not be justified in any given action that ends up in a courtroom. The idea of law is to compare them all against what is provided for under the U.S. Constitution, and the applicable U.S. laws, not foreign rulings.
Further, the same goes for “living Constitution” believers. Justice O’Connor should have been at least censured for writing that her own ruling ought to be overturned (or made moot) in 25 years. What is she, the Oracle of Delphi? People like her have all the answers, but unfortunately, they’re all wrong.
On your last point: Israelte law and the Ten Commandments do form the foundation of many of our laws, but they are far too distant to be cited in any current ruling. It would be nice if they were cited about such things as abortion, where their laws had progressively worse penalties for killing an unborn child, depending on how many months into the pregnancy it was when killed.
News on every hour. http://www.bignews.com
Healthy Coffee
Kumho Tyres