Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Recently we had a Supreme Court Justice cite Foreign law as a reason for ( I believe he was in opposition to the majority) his opposition to a ruling by that Court. And I believe that at least once a Supreme Court Decision alluded to foreign laws as a basis for some decision. This is WRONG. The Court has only the power granted it by the Constitution and that specifically STATES where they decide issues from.
RetiredGySgt: said:Once again the process for bringing in Foreign law is through treaty ( making it binding legal law for the Country) or through acts of the Legislature.
RetiredGySgt: said:As for Corporate law... Want to do business in our Country? Follow our laws. Want to be a US Corporation? Follow our laws no matter where you do business.
Then there's no need to amend the Constitution is there? And this thread is a figment of my imagination.
You're ahead of us. We can ignore treaties if we wish. It's wrong but it's a fact - *sigh*.
Sure thing, no problem, but what about where a corporation here is doing its business and the US govt tries to reach in because some corporate interest in the US is being adversely affected?
You mean like tariffs? Since all the US Government can do is affect Corporation operating in the US or prevent them from using US banks. Be specific and then lets check out what OTHER countries do in similiar cases, shall we?
Hey not a problem here, I enjoy discussing stuff with you! While sometimes a bit patronising, (which of course I never am.Not evading Kathianne, reflecting on your points. Sometimes it's possible to take the point and then think about associated issues rather than get into a pissing match, no matter how genteel. I took your points but not totally each time. But they did make me think of other things and I sort of springboarded off them. I am a stubborn and argumentative person when it comes to some things and I'm like that across the table from someone just as I am in reading and responding in an internet forum (I'm worse face to face actually - not that I'm too proud of it).
And if I said, "good points", I'd probably come across as a smug and superior type - which I'm not. I get told I'm patronising when I'm actually being quite sincere. It must have something to do with my delivery.
), you stay polite and even mannered! 
Your point? Every Country has similar concepts.
Hey not a problem here, I enjoy discussing stuff with you! While sometimes a bit patronising, (which of course I never am.
Not to the extent historically claimed by the US.
Sure thing, remind us how England has not tried ( nor Italy) to try American troops for actions in a foreign war zone.
I know nothing about that claim. You may have to dig up some evidence for it as you appear to be making it.
Belgium though, yes, they have a law to that effect. My opinion of that is the same as for US extraterritoriality - bloody ridiculous.
Look at the current hoo-hah over the conjurer bloke David Copperfield. He is alleged to have committed a sexual offence against an American woman in the Bahamas and the FBI is trying to pinch him.
So you never saw the Court attempt in England to try American Pilots for "friendly" fire,, nor never saw the Italian Court trying to get the US to hand over the Soldiers from the checkpoint that shot their operatives after paying kidnappers to free a newswoman? Your going to stick to this claim?
Ah yes, the Brits killed by US personnel. I remember some Canadians were killed as well. I remember reading the outrage in Britain and the lack of cooperation by your government.
The Italian security bloke was shot to death at the checkpoint. Yes, I remember that one as well.
They all failed didn't they?
No they did not, in the case of the Italian Courts those men can never travel to Europe or any Country with extradiction process to Italy. The English one was a wash but not from lack of trying.
BUT if we are going to make the final Judgement on whether or not they failed, then the US has done nothing wrong either, since almost all of their attempts fail also.
I've got a very simple outlook on these things - whether they be civil or criminal. If the event happened in a particular jurisdiction then that's where the claim should be pursued or the prosecution launched.
Fine, I agree, but your claim that the US is doing something that everyone else does not do is false.
