(no subject)

[dcseain]

I'm on the American Family Association's email alert list. If you don't know the AFA, they're a 'Christian'-right organisation. The bolded text is all as they sent it:

Did you know that our Supreme Court has begun making law based not on our constitution alone, but also on the laws of other nations? If you find that hard to believe, read on.

In their decision legalizing sodomy, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority of the court saying it took into consideration the laws of other nations in reaching their decision: "The laws of Northern Ireland forbade him (a homosexual defendant) that right" (to practice sodomy). Kennedy also referenced the European Court of Human Rights and wrote: "Other nations have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct."

In the recent case involving capital punishment for those under age 18, Justice Kennedy continued this trend. Again writing for the majority of the court, he wrote: "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty." The point here is not the ruling, but the fact that the Supreme Court looked not solely to the U.S. Constitution, but also to the laws of other nations.

This trend by the Supreme Court is very frightening. It moves toward having the laws of other nations supersede the U.S. Constitution. In the eyes of the Supreme Court, they are no longer bound by our constitution, but are free to use the laws of any country to reach the ruling they want.

Once any nominee is confirmed by the Senate, they are free to rule however they desire-including basing their decisions on the laws of other countries-without the people having any practical recourse.

Please, before it is too late, make your voice heard on this matter. Sign the petition to the Senate Judiciary Committee urging them to question all nominees about this issue. We must not have a Supreme Court that will allow laws from other nations to supersede our constitution.

Take action. Then forward this petition to your family and friends.

This annoys/perturbs/frustrates me, and yes, i know i signed up to receive their blatherings. Do they not realize that our legal system is rooted in English Common Law, and that any number of international cases, particularly British ones, have served as legal precedent since the earliest days of our republic. Do they not want to believe that the US cannot exist in a vacuum, as much as they may want it to. Gah! Shit like this drives me batty. What concern is it of theirs as to who wants to sodomize whom, so long as all parties are consenting. Hmph. At least i know what they're doing and can work to undermine it in my small way.

Comments

[scarydavedc.livejournal.com]

Dothey not know that the constitution was ment to be chnaged witht he times, which is why they had some dandy little things called Amendments?

[dcseain.livejournal.com]

Testify, Brother.

[aliza250.livejournal.com]

our legal system is rooted in English Common Law, and that any number of international cases, particularly British ones, have served as legal precedent since the earliest days of our republic.

You're being inaccurate. British court decisions prior to 1776 serve as legal precedent in the US because, prior to 1776, British law was binding here. Similarly, in various parts of the US Spanish, Mexican, and Napoleonic French laws serve as legal precedents. (I have not heard of Tsarist Russian law being applied in Alaska, but it would not shock me.) That makes sense because it causes lots of chaos to simply throw out existing laws and legal precedents. (In particular, cases involving property deeds sometimes involve research that goes fairly far back in time.)

However, as of some date between 1776 and 1789, the connection with British law was severed. The only thing that makes British law any more legally applicable in the US than, say, Sri Lanka law, is that there may be cases where a judge has to go back to British common law to decide a case, and might choose to look at how other places subject to British Common Law have recently interpreted the same precedents.

[dcseain.livejournal.com]

However, as of some date between 1776 and 1789, the connection with British law was severed. The only thing that makes British law any more legally applicable in the US than, say, Sri Lanka law, is that there may be cases where a judge has to go back to British common law to decide a case, and might choose to look at how other places subject to British Common Law have recently interpreted the same precedents.

Thank you for the clarification of my understanding. Based on what you've said, it is safe to presume that Hawai'ian tabu could serve as precedent in Hawai'i?

[aliza250.livejournal.com]

Given the high regard with which the US government has held Native American traditions and institutions, and the way in which the Hawai'ian monarchy was overthrown by a revolution by American landowners, I suspect the answer is no.

On a tangent, to this day Americans cannot own property in Mexico, as a rection to the way the Texas "pioneers" took control of that area.

[dcseain.livejournal.com]

Given the high regard with which the US government has held Native American traditions and institutions, and the way in which the Hawai'ian monarchy was overthrown by a revolution by American landowners, I suspect the answer is no.

True. Though as a condition of affiliation with us, the State of Hawai'i oversees native Hawai'ians, not the BIA, which is a good thing. And despite the methods the US Gov't used to overthrow the monarchy, it did issue a passport in the name of Liliuokalani of Hawaii to the last queen who was deposed.

On a tangent, to this day Americans cannot own property in Mexico, as a rection to the way the Texas "pioneers" took control of that area.

True, and who can really blame the Mexicans for that limitation, especially since after the whole Texas thing, we went on to forcibly annex the northern 1/3 of their country. On the other hand, if the US had designs on the rest of the country, we could've kept it after invading Mexico City back when.