Constitutional Amendment For Excluding Foreign Law?

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Annie, Nov 17, 2007.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Is that in the Constitution? Interesting post:


    http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_11_11-2007_11_17.shtml#1195310819

    Would kind of put 'moot' on ICC, I'm in favor of it.
     
  2. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    this seemed a rather obvious observation as to why laws outside the us should not be considered....

    "The Constitution, he notes, draws its legitimacy from the consent of the governed and the American Revolution was motivated, in part, in opposition to the imposition of foreign rule on the colonies. Thus it would be quite incongruous for the meaning of the Constitution to be dependent upon the decisions and views of foreign governments or international institutions, rather than the considered views of the American people."

    i will have to remember this for my next liberal dinner party.....
     
  3. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Yeah, my kind of reasoning. When in doubt between feds and states; states. When in doubt between US and 'world'; US. ;)
     
  4. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    seems so simple.....we should run for office.........:lol:
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Hey, I'll hide behind you, unless of course, I'm on a roll. ;)
     
  6. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    Isn't this more American Nativism dressed up in intellectual robes?
     
  7. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    does austraila look to new zeland or bali to interprt its laws?
     
  8. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,557
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,434
    Yes. No one has ever ruled that we were *governed* by foreign laws except to the extent that we are required to by treaty or other consent.

    There is nothing wrong with looking to foreign law for guidence if a particular case requires it.

    Silliness...
     
  9. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    It's not living by YOUR leave. Label what you will. The argument presented is completely logical.
     
  10. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    I think the objection is to Supreme Court justices and clerks citing to foreign law in their decisions. It's pretty rank, and almost always done to advance a liberal agenda.*

    An amendment would not stop the bad stuff, though: justices would just come to their desired result and stay quiet about their inspiration. Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board and all the other disasters didn't need the help of Belgian law... just plain ol' liberal nonsense.

    WHAT WE REALLY NEED are Supreme Court justices who respect the American Constitution and the ways, morals and manners of traditional America.

    *Or meddling with neocon goals, which Jews Volokh and Adler are keen to see happen.
     

Share This Page