The U. S. or World Supreme Court?
A recent trend in court rulings, including some from the Supreme Court, has been to cite international laws, or laws and precedents from other countries to decide in the way the judge or justices wanted to rule. Apparently, unable to find enough support for their opinion in our own laws and or constitution, they resort to foreign influences.
This begs the question: Is the U. S. Supreme Court misnamed? Should it be called the "World Supreme Court"?
The U. S. courts are to interpret U. S. law, and rule on its (U. S.) constitutionally. Right? Were did our founding fathers write in the constitution that our Supreme Court should rule on the international comparability of our laws?
In the most recent example of the internationalism of the Supreme Court they ruled that if an individual commits a capital offense before age 18, the state cannot impose a death penalty on this individual. Since the court could not point to U. S. laws or the U. S. Constitution to show the laws to be wrong, the majority opinion cites two proposed treaties to which the U. S. NEVER agreed, and the fact that many other countries do not execute people convicted of crimes committed before age 18. "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty..." wrote Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion.
Why should a U.S. Court, interpreting U.S. Law, acknowledge “international opinion”? Does anyone remember "No taxation without representation?" If our Supreme Court is going to enforce laws passed in, for example, Sweden on me, I want the opportunity to vote on the legislature in Sweden!
If one wishes to make this argument in the legislature, to show why a law should be changed, that is fine. However, the court's job is to interpret laws, and rule on their U.S. Constitutionality ONLY!
Now don't think that I am supporting the execution of minors. I AM NOT. On this issue I lean more toward the practice being wrong than I do right. If my state had been one of the ones which allowed it, I would not have opposed the law's repeal. The death penalty is SERIOUS business, not to be taken lightly.
I have a hard time disagreeing with the ruling as a moral issue. However, as a legal issue, the court should have ruled it NOT to be a constitutional issue and then, if it wanted, spent pages preaching to the states that they should change their laws because it feels the laws to be immoral.
If they have to use foreign laws to prop up their decisions they are making three statements loud and clear...
1. They cannot find U. S. laws, etc. to make their case.
2. Their desire to rule a certain way supersedes their oath of office. (Which does NOT include enforcing international laws on the United States.)
3.They believe the U. S. citizens and legislatures, having passed the law in the first place, to be inferior to those of other countries, and subject to the laws of the superior foreign citizens and legislatures.
Are these qualities we want in our judges?
So, how do we protect the sovereignty of our nation and our laws from a judiciary so willing to show its disloyalty to our country, its laws, and its oath to uphold them? Well, I have an idea that just might work.
Now, I would think this to be self evident, but apparently some judges cannot see this so, why don't we pass an amendment to the Constitution which states something like...
”When ruling on the Constitutionality of a law, judges and justices are limited to 1) U.S. Constitution. 2) (U.S.) State Constitutions. 3) U.S. Federal law. 4) (U.S.) State law. 5)Judicial precedent based solely upon the previous four limiters.
If the case involves a foreign country then they may also use ratified treaties between the U.S. and that particular foreign country involved.”
There will be resistance from those who agree with the courts making up anything they want to rule in a certain way. However, it will be difficult to argue with the common sense of this amendment. Could a senator have much of a political future if he or she argues that judges SHOULD rule on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of OUR laws based on FOREIGN laws? Even if it never passes the senate, and therefore never is added to the constitution, if it gets some vigorous debate on the senate floor, it will show some senators for what they REALLY are.
The biggest problem I see is getting enough senators fired up about this to get the ball rolling. If you have any ideas as to how to do this, please let me know.
And remember to read more about it...
Yahoo! News - High Court Ends Death Penalty for Youths
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
This begs the question: Is the U. S. Supreme Court misnamed? Should it be called the "World Supreme Court"?
The U. S. courts are to interpret U. S. law, and rule on its (U. S.) constitutionally. Right? Were did our founding fathers write in the constitution that our Supreme Court should rule on the international comparability of our laws?
In the most recent example of the internationalism of the Supreme Court they ruled that if an individual commits a capital offense before age 18, the state cannot impose a death penalty on this individual. Since the court could not point to U. S. laws or the U. S. Constitution to show the laws to be wrong, the majority opinion cites two proposed treaties to which the U. S. NEVER agreed, and the fact that many other countries do not execute people convicted of crimes committed before age 18. "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty..." wrote Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion.
Why should a U.S. Court, interpreting U.S. Law, acknowledge “international opinion”? Does anyone remember "No taxation without representation?" If our Supreme Court is going to enforce laws passed in, for example, Sweden on me, I want the opportunity to vote on the legislature in Sweden!
If one wishes to make this argument in the legislature, to show why a law should be changed, that is fine. However, the court's job is to interpret laws, and rule on their U.S. Constitutionality ONLY!
Now don't think that I am supporting the execution of minors. I AM NOT. On this issue I lean more toward the practice being wrong than I do right. If my state had been one of the ones which allowed it, I would not have opposed the law's repeal. The death penalty is SERIOUS business, not to be taken lightly.
I have a hard time disagreeing with the ruling as a moral issue. However, as a legal issue, the court should have ruled it NOT to be a constitutional issue and then, if it wanted, spent pages preaching to the states that they should change their laws because it feels the laws to be immoral.
If they have to use foreign laws to prop up their decisions they are making three statements loud and clear...
1. They cannot find U. S. laws, etc. to make their case.
2. Their desire to rule a certain way supersedes their oath of office. (Which does NOT include enforcing international laws on the United States.)
3.They believe the U. S. citizens and legislatures, having passed the law in the first place, to be inferior to those of other countries, and subject to the laws of the superior foreign citizens and legislatures.
Are these qualities we want in our judges?
So, how do we protect the sovereignty of our nation and our laws from a judiciary so willing to show its disloyalty to our country, its laws, and its oath to uphold them? Well, I have an idea that just might work.
Now, I would think this to be self evident, but apparently some judges cannot see this so, why don't we pass an amendment to the Constitution which states something like...
”When ruling on the Constitutionality of a law, judges and justices are limited to 1) U.S. Constitution. 2) (U.S.) State Constitutions. 3) U.S. Federal law. 4) (U.S.) State law. 5)Judicial precedent based solely upon the previous four limiters.
If the case involves a foreign country then they may also use ratified treaties between the U.S. and that particular foreign country involved.”
There will be resistance from those who agree with the courts making up anything they want to rule in a certain way. However, it will be difficult to argue with the common sense of this amendment. Could a senator have much of a political future if he or she argues that judges SHOULD rule on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of OUR laws based on FOREIGN laws? Even if it never passes the senate, and therefore never is added to the constitution, if it gets some vigorous debate on the senate floor, it will show some senators for what they REALLY are.
The biggest problem I see is getting enough senators fired up about this to get the ball rolling. If you have any ideas as to how to do this, please let me know.
And remember to read more about it...
Yahoo! News - High Court Ends Death Penalty for Youths
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home