1911Forum banner

1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
956 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Source: Washington Times

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor predicts that the U.S. Supreme Court will increasingly base its decisions on international law rather than the U.S. Constitution, according to an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
By doing so, the court will make a good impression among people from other countries, she said.
"The impressions we create in this world are important and they can leave their mark," Justice O'Connor said.
On the whole, the U.S. judicial system leaves a favorable impression around the world, she said "but when it comes to the impression created by the treatment of foreign and international law and the United States court, the jury is still out."
The 73-year-old justice made her remarks at a dinner in Atlanta sponsored by the Southern Center for International Studies.
The first cited case was decided in 2002 when the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded, she said. In arriving at that decision, Justice O'Connor said, the high court noted that the world community overwhelmingly disapproved of the practice.
Also influential was a court brief filed by American diplomats who discussed the difficulties confronted in their foreign missions due to U.S. death-penalty practices, she said.
The second ruling cited by Justice O'Connor was the striking down of the Texas antisodomy law, relying partly on a series of decisions by European courts on the same issue.
"I suspect," Justice O'Connor said, "that over time we will rely increasingly — or take notice, at least — increasingly on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
Ive heard this before. She should be impeached. As should any other justice basing any decision on foreign law or even considering foreign law. Their job is not to decide what is right or wrong and write law from the bench according to some foreign influence mongrel philosophy. Their job is to look at the Constitution and consider what the duly elected Legislators --IN THIS COUNTRY-- were thinking at the time of its ratification or amending. If a problem is found with the Constitution it is to be amended, not changed by judicial fiat.

These people make my blood boil. When I consider these quotes by Jefferson I am immediately struck with his wisdom in seeing the creation of what may well be the instrument of our destruction two hundred years before the fact in the Marbury vs Madison decision. That they would consider foreign law entirely outside their scope is a leap to an even further height of absurdity.

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
647 Posts
I find that particularly worrisome. It is one thing to try not to offend one's neighbors, but you go way off the reservation when you make plans to disregard the most important document in this nation (as far as government goes, anyway). Maybe the next Amendment needs to make provision for removal of justices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
I find discussion of the US constitution to be quite curious.

If I had to sum up the US constitution in one word, I'd use the term "defeated".

Generally, what's written on it means very little - it's already been so thoroughly defiled that the little bits we still cling to (say, the second amendment, already gone anyway as all federal gun laws are inviolation) aren't that significant.

The whole printing money thing, and the unconstitutional welfare spending, and the environmental edicts have the most direct impact over people's lives. Do guns have the same impact on your life as half of your income?

So what is the constitution used for today? Look to when people use the term "constitutional" - generally it's used as consolidation. For example, some folk vote themselves some wealth redistribution scheme or privelege. Attempts to REMOVE it through the same means are attacked as UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Judges reinterpret the living document. That they happen to now prefer to reinterpret it to mean something that people in Europe may like is merely a symptom of this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,163 Posts
As far as executing the retarded, it clearly could be argued (and was) that this would constitute cruel and unusual punishment against people with diminished capaity to understand their actions and their effects. Whether we agree with that opinion, the fact is that a decision could be based on that and that would clearly be IN COMPLIANCE with our constitution.

As for Supreme courts writing law by interpreting the laws "their way"? That's been going on for two hundred years. The only time administrations whine about it is when the interpretations don't go their way.

FWIW: ask any scholar about the US government's system of "checks and balances" and they will tell you the Supreme Court is the only violation to the rule. They are appointed for life and do anything they damn well please. They also lie through their teeth to get confirmed like when Antony Scalia (a devout roman catholic) said with a straight face he had "no opinion" on the issue of abortion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
The reason why the Constitution is important is because it is the document from which the legitimacy of the US Government is derived. Minus the Constitution their powers are based on nothing but force. The Constitution also contains all the ideas and principles our country was originally based on, and those ideas and principles are what made this country great. As such they represent a worthwhile goal to return our country to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
bountyhunter said:

As for Supreme courts writing law by interpreting the laws "their way"? That's been going on for two hundred years. The only time administrations whine about it is when the interpretations don't go their way.

Naah - gross reinterpretation from what the constitution SAYS has been going on for so long (about a century). and what the federal government does is so far removed from WHAT IT SAYS, that they can't imagine just reading it literally.

BTW: Test your "reinterpretation" skills:

YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

If you can read one and only one interpration of this, you will be insulted, proving my point.

Or reinterpret away, and smile back at me and say thanks for the compliment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
bountyhunter said:
As far as executing the retarded, it clearly could be argued (and was) that this would constitute cruel and unusual punishment against people with diminished capaity to understand their actions and their effects. Whether we agree with that opinion, the fact is that a decision could be based on that and that would clearly be IN COMPLIANCE with our constitution.
Nonsense. You think there was more than one punishment for murder when the Constitution was ratified? There is nothing cruel and unusual about executing murderers. It is the traditional punishment for murder going back to the dawn of time.

Cruel and unusual punishment was meant to cover things like torture, mutilation, amputation, etc.

Read what the founding fathers wrote.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,304 Posts
O'Connor typifies the overt political appointees that should be brought to heel by the Congress as is their authority and duty.

We really do badly need another Joe McCarthy - or rather more than a few of them. Organizations like the Southern Center for International Studies need to be shut down, and those who insist on pursuing their ideology be given the choice of a ticket to any foreign port of their choice.

The "Southern Center for International Studies" is a name which implies some sort of neutral educational institution. But if you visit their website the opening page declares;

"The primary mission of SCIS is to internationalize the thinking of the American public."

Then in the very next sentence states;

"In accomplishing this mission, SCIS seeks to inform. It does not take political positions or attempt to influence policy."

It then goes on to list some other interesting items, one of which is the training of teachers throughout the country. More global socialist brainwashing in schools and colleges etc.

I really do hope and pray that we get some real leadership in this country; because the alternative down the road is going to be extremely unpleasant.

SCIS website:
http://www.southerncenter.org/

--------------------------------
"We must press on with our agenda for peace and prosperity in every land." - George Bush, to the United Nations General Assembly, November 10, 2001
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
LAK said:
We really do badly need another Joe McCarthy - or rather more than a few of them.
Right. Or at the very least enough like minded individuals to prevent others in their own party from throwing him to the wolves when he embarrasses them for their own complicity as the Republicans did to McCarthy after he made a fool out of Eisenhower.

LAK said:
Organizations like the Southern Center for International Studies need to be shut down, and those who insist on pursuing their ideology be given the choice of a ticket to any foreign port of their choice.
How would you do that and remain within the limits of the constitution? I can think of legal things you could do to make things difficult for them like revoke their tax exempt status if any, or disallow them from any participation in activities paid for with public funds. But as far as deporting those people or arresting them what would you do it on? Conspiracy to commit treason in regard to their attempt to subvert the US to an international authority?

One thing McCarthy showed was merely shining the light of public scrutiny on these people and their activities and they scurry for cover like worms and insects after you flip over a rock.

LAK said:
I really do hope and pray that we get some real leadership in this country; because the alternative down the road is going to be extremely unpleasant.
Agree 100%.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
I put forth that it is counter-productive even FANTASIZING about using such oppressive means to counter America's enemies.

Couple of reasons:

1. You give ammunition to your opposition. They need not openly face you on the real issues; but say: "Look, we are the true friends of liberty, they want to deport us all to cuba".


2. In the grand scheme of things, the most openly rabid communist/Anti-American/Anti-Constitutional organization is nothing compared to the (effective) infiltration of America's schools, universities, and economics/philosophy departments. A press release praising Castro, or a carnival celebrating Vietnamese Independence day, is inconsequential compared to the university lecturer who has access to a young mind hungry for information.

I fear communists who call themselves capitalists.

Exposing groups like this (and more importantly, academics who teach same under the radar) is what you need to do. But don't sink to their level.


Battler.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,304 Posts
Mus,

"How would you do that and remain within the limits of the constitution? "?

If I recall correctly, the only hollering about the Constitution during the McCarthy hearings .... was about the 5th. The right to remain silent.

You hit it pretty much on the head too when you mentioned the fact that once the light was on them, most were scrambling to crawl back under the rocks.

While a fair portion of these people could no doubt be charged with serious crimes - the rest of them could simply be reminded of the fact that their ideology and "culture" is on a level with, perhaps a step or two, below the NAZI party. Their ideological upline in Bolshevic Russia did it all first and most.

I was only half joking about the tickets, but I would offer them a free ticket out. Afterall, such an obnoxious bunch of people need a homeland of their own.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
Battler said:
I put forth that it is counter-productive even FANTASIZING about using such oppressive means to counter America's enemies...Exposing groups like this (and more importantly, academics who teach same under the radar) is what you need to do. But don't sink to their level.
I agree thats why I asked for clarification on that one part.

All thats left to wonder about is are the American people as smart and as freedom loving as they were in the 1950s where they reacted strongly against the Communists once they were publicly exposed as such.

After so many years of this reeducation going on in public schools, and my own experience in Junior HS and HS in the 90s I have to wonder.

LAK said:
I was only half joking about the tickets, but I would offer them a free ticket out. Afterall, such an obnoxious bunch of people need a homeland of their own.
Let me be the first to humbly suggest France.

;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,304 Posts
Battler,

Sounds good. Except that such an approach would not have suppressed the Bolshevic revolution - nor the rising Nazi party in Germany. These people come from the same ideological roots - and sooner or later they are going to run right over us.

Something that seems evident in this ideological war is that many people have been caught up in the notion that "people were different" before WW1 - or the 1930s - as if somehow "people have changed" in the course of time.

This is nonsense of course; and it should be remembered that the transition from very ordered and civilized nations to the most appalling barbarism took place over very short periods of time.

Their present day ideological downline are no less dangerous, barbaric and ruthless. The filtered media appearences of their frontmen (and women), organizations and institutions are simply a product of more sophisticated and polished audio and visual propaganda.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,304 Posts
Mus,

Naaaah; there are actually a great many good patriotic French people. I wouldn't want to send them any more global socialists than have already been forced down their throats. These people need a homeland they can truly call their own.

I would suggest Antarctica. It wouldn't mean re-settling anybody, and that harsh cold environment would suit their ideology very well. They could all "share" their foodstores, and crowd together to stay warm.

They could usure, tax, and regulate each other to death.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
LAK said:
Sounds good. Except that such an approach would not have suppressed the Bolshevic revolution - nor the rising Nazi party in Germany. These people come from the same ideological roots - and sooner or later they are going to run right over us.
But beyond preventing them access to tax exempt status or participating in public educational institutions or any other publicly funded venue what can you do to them that prevents them from accomplishing their mission?

Some of the things that are clear to me is who some of the people involved are, what their goals are, and where we are headed as a nation if we dont stop it. How we go about convincing more people it needs to be stopped is another story. If things are good people say why mess with a good thing. If things are bad it just gets used as an excuse for further controls and more steps down the same path.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
LAK said:
Something that seems evident in this ideological war is that many people have been caught up in the notion that "people were different" before WW1 - or the 1930s - as if somehow "people have changed" in the course of time.
Not in their fundamental nature, but I think its undeniable that people have greatly degenerated in a moral sense. They are also very poorly educated, reeducated would be a better word for what goes on in our public schools now, and have almost no grasp on history or any other philosophy other than that filtered through soft marxism.

Outright acceptance of the New Deal for example is something you would find in probably 90% of the population. Something that was seen for what it was by many, if not the majority, of the people in the 30s as Marxism is now the status quo. Its radical to suggest we do away with it.

Its not a change in human nature I am worried about, but a shift in our national character.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
How to win? Hard to say.

You'd be hard pressed to find people who are ideologically consistent in supporting liberty. There are few who oppose the "new deal", fewer who would oppose public schools. It's hard to resist the urge to demonize large companies/corporations, even though they are large through doing what they do well and efficiency.

Yes, a lot of this is that people are used to them; but likewise fear of a world without them make them shy away from thoughts of liberty.


How to win? I'm not certain if it's possible. A marxist can do anything needed to win without breaking ideological consistency - that people are generally the property of all others. It's easier to teach that there should be public schools, to students of public schools, than it is to indoctrinate the opposite WITHOUT public schools.


Some positive input? Most people consider stealing to be wrong; yet (through Marx's teachings) have a manner of doing so by proxy, intellectually evading that there is a victim and a recipient, and force involved. Barriers include demonization of the wealthy (who pay most of the tax), and this "fair share" business (that the very wealthy owe some "fair share" of some redistributed money that they don't actually receive.

It IS ironic however that what holds (further socialism) at bay is not wealthy elites of the coast; but poorer folk in middle-America with a principled opposition to wealth redistibution, even though it would (in the short term) benefit them. Normally, if you promised 51% of the people the income of the other 49% it would be a sure winner; but It is these people, IMHO, who keep elections from being a pure welfare auction.
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top