The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Rastus on April 13, 2009, 06:40:53 AM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html?_r=1&em (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html?_r=1&em)
Ruth "Buzzie" at it again. Foreign law trumping our own....how can a nation of laws be held accountable for, let along held together, by such nonsense?
Read it for yourself on the link......
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html?_r=1&em (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html?_r=1&em)
Ruth "Buzzie" at it again. Foreign law trumping our own....how can a nation of laws be held accountable for, let along held together, by such nonsense?
Read it for yourself on the link......
Thanks but I already had my fiber for the morning >:(
-
Who gives a rat's ass if the Canadian Supreme Court is quoted abroad more often than the SCOTUS? Your job, Buzzy, is to interpret the COTUS as it to cases that come before the SCOTUS. Nothing more, nothing less. If you're so damned impressed with the Canadian Supreme Court, go sit on that judicial body. That would be one Ginsberg decision that would be BENEFICIAL to the citizens of this country, and to our Constitution!!
-
Actually guys, hold your fire, there is nothing political here. Useing foreign law in interpreting cases is a principle called "commity" it is based on the idea that the law of civilized nations is and should be similar. This a very old tradition. If you go back and look at cases dealing with things like indian law and disputes between states, you'll see this. The early litgation over slavery held this as well. In fact the dissent in Dred Scot v Sanford used th Grace case (an English ruling about whether a Jamaican slave brought to Britian was now free) as holding law. The sky is not falling, or if it is, its been falling for about 150 years .
FQ13
-
Actually guys, hold your fire, there is nothing political here. Useing foreign law in interpreting cases is a principle called "commity" it is based on the idea that the law of civilized nations is and should be similar. This a very old tradition. If you go back and look at cases dealing with things like indian law and disputes between states, you'll see this. The early litgation over slavery held this as well. In fact the dissent in Dred Scot v Sanford used th Grace case (an English ruling about whether a Jamaican slave brought to Britian was now free) as holding law. The sky is not falling, or if it is, its been falling for about 150 years .
FQ13
Now I will admit that it has been a few years since I sat in a civics class, so correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the whole point of the SCOTUS was to either confirm or reject the constitutionality of laws passed by congress? You know, checks and balances and all of that. If this is the case, then there is no reason for the SCOTUS to be referring to other nations laws for any reason. That being said that would mean that the last legitimate case to be heard before the high court was D.C. vs. Hellar.
-
Now I will admit that it has been a few years since I sat in a civics class, so correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the whole point of the SCOTUS was to either confirm or reject the constitutionality of laws passed by congress? You know, checks and balances and all of that. If this is the case, then there is no reason for the SCOTUS to be referring to other nations laws for any reason. That being said that would mean that the last legitimate case to be heard before the high court was D.C. vs. Hellar.
Look, let me say up front that I'm not making an argument about should or shouldn't I'm just reporting facts, so don't shoot the messenger. The thing about SCOTUS is that it is in the business of both making law and rewriting the constitution. This what happens every time it rules. The Court effectively says "The constitution means This" and so mote it by. As Holmes ( I belive) said "The court isn't final because it is infallible, its infallible because its final". If you want to be a cynic (and give Al Gore some comfort) you can say that the greatest constituional principle we have is that 5 is a bigger number than 4. The fact is though, that its worked pretty well so far, with a few exceptions.
The thing people need to understand is that the Court makes law and rewrites the constituion because it has to. To give the Con Law 101 answer, in an ideal world the court takes cases for 3 reasons (none of them having to do with seeing justice done). These are
1 Dealing with an issue where the circuit courts are in conflict
2 dealing with a new issue like abortion or the internet or what NAFTA obligations mean for state law
3 A clear constitutional question like whether the right to habeas corpus applies only in the US or to anyone held in US custody
In settling these issues the justices look for guidance from statute law, the constitution and from precedent. If those don't provide clear answers they go looking further afield, the Federalist Papers, state law, political consensus and yes international law. The thing is, the Courts job is to come up with a rule that lower courts can use to deal with similar cicumstances. If they'res nothing here they'll outsource over seas and they've been doing it since John Marshall and the first SCOTUS. Hope this was helpful.
FQ13
-
Once again FQ you are mixing apples and oranges. Quoting English law (upon which much of our law is based (see Black)) as a defense or support is one thing. Using foreign law to interpret the meaning of the US Constitution is another thing all together.
-
Look, let say up front that I'm not making an argument about should or shouldn't I'm just reporting facts, so don't shoot the messenger. The thing about SCOTUS is that it is in business of both making law and rewritig the constitution. This what happens every time it rules. The Court effectively says "The constitution means This" and so mote it by. As Holmes ( I belive) said "The court isn't final because it is infallible, its infallible because its final". If you want to be cynic (and give Al Gore some comfort) you can say that the greatest constituional principle we have is that 5 is a bigger number than 4. The fact is though, that its worked pretty well so far, with a few exce;tions.
The thing people ned to undersand is that the Court makes law and rewrites the constituion because it has to. To give the Con Law 101 answer, in an ideal world the court takes cases for 3 reasons (none of them having to do with seeing justice done). These are
1 Dealing with an issue where the cicuit courts re in conflict
2 dealing with a new issue like abortion or the internet or what NAFTA obligations mean for state law
3 A clear constitutional question like whether the right to habeas corpus applies only in US or to anyone held in US custody
In settling these issues the justices lok for guidance from statute law, the constitution and from precedent. If those don't provide clear answers they go looking further afield, the Federalist Papers, state law, political consensus and yes international law. The thing is, the Courts job is to come up with a rule that lower courts can use to deal with similar cicumstances. If they'res nothing here they'll outsource over seas and they've been doing it sinc John Marshall and the first SCOTUS. Hope this was helpful.
FQ13
Absolutely! I am not arguing facts, I am just making sure that what I understand is correct. Turns out I was partially correct, but not quite a V ring. Thank you for the clarification. I guess I can't jump on them too hard, I mean when I have to make big decision I find out everything I can before pulling the trigger. I guess it just kinda frustrates me that they don't have enough information based in our own court system, and they have to resort to looking at international law. Mostly I fear that international law will start to take pecitence over our constitution.
-
Well, actually where not specified by U.S. law or precedent, we can go back (except where there is a civil code) as far as the Magna Carta to solve law; but only through English court decisions. This, however, is not what Ruth Buzzie is speaking of. She wants to mix and match and pull from whatever the heck she wants to make law.
-
Well, actually where not specified by U.S. law or precedent, we can go back (except where there is a civil code) as far as the Magna Carta to solve law; but only through English court decisions. This, however, is not what Ruth Buzzie is speaking of. She wants to mix and match and pull from whatever the heck she wants to make law.
Thank you, Ras. That is exactly what I was trying to say.
-
Once again FQ you are mixing apples and oranges. Quoting English law (upon which much of our law is based (see Black)) as a defense or support is one thing. Using foreign law to interpret the meaning of the US Constitution is another thing all together.
Haz I'm not mixing anything. (although it is 4:30 and a Hazerita wouldn't go amiss in about half an hour). I just quoted Grace in Dred Scott because it was something I could quote by heart. I didn't feel like spending an hour digging up other cases. The Court has historically, and will continue to use international law as PART (not all) of its reasoning in making decisions if there is nothing home grown, or derived from common law, that they can find to apply. Again, this isn't an argument about Ginsberg pro or con, just what I've learned teaching this stuff. Its not the norm but its also nothing new. As a quick for instance it came up in 8th amendment challenges to applying the death penalty for the mentally retarded and juveniles. I make no judgement here as to whether it should have, gallons of ink have been spilled and trees lost their lives arguing that point, I'm just saying it does happen.
FQ13
-
Does it happen? Yes. SHOULD it happen? No
The court long ago over stepped its role and should be slapped back.
-
Does it happen? Yes. SHOULD it happen? No
The court long ago over stepped its role and should be slapped back.
And on that my friend, we are in complete agreement.
FQ13
-
Does it happen? Yes. SHOULD it happen? No
The court long ago over stepped its role and should be slapped back.
Name one of the three branches of government that HASN'T overstepped it's role recently.
-
Name one of the three branches of government that HASN'T overstepped it's role recently.
In the spirit of Haz's trivia challenge, I'll go with "What is none of the above", for a thousand, Alex.
FQ13
-
In the spirit of Haz's trivia challenge, I'll go with "What is none of the above", for a thousand, Alex.
FQ13
DING, DING, DING................We have a winner!! What do you have for him, Johnny?!?
-
Name one of the three branches of government that HASN'T overstepped it's role recently.
While it is not regarded as a branch of govt. per se the military, as the largest collection of fire power under a single chain of command is a de facto branch of govt. that probably SHOULD overstep their bounds. I for one would CHEER a temporary military administration that involved jailing, hanging and/or shooting Pelosi, Reid, Frank etc.
-
Some people's minds don't age as well as others'. I think maybe she's a little overdone.
“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she asked
Maybe too much credit is given to some (not all) professors.
-
Some people's minds don't age as well as others'. I think maybe she's a little overdone.
Maybe too much credit is given to some (not all) professors.
Hey! I ressemble that remark. The day I get cited in a SCOTUS ruling, even if it is in dissent, I'll retire happy! ;D
FQ13
-
While it is not regarded as a branch of govt. per se the military, as the largest collection of fire power under a single chain of command is a de facto branch of govt. that probably SHOULD overstep their bounds. I for one would CHEER a temporary military administration that involved jailing, hanging and/or shooting Pelosi, Reid, Frank etc.
You need to stop whispering those sweet nothings....
-
Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she asked
Because our nation was founded with a totally different mind set than the top down administration of other nations.
I have my own question, If the laws of other countries are so wonderful how come we need a WALL to keep their citizens out of THIS COUNTRY ?
-
Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she asked
Because our nation was founded with a totally different mind set than the top down administration of other nations.
I have my own question, If the laws of other countries are so wonderful how come we need a WALL to keep their citizens out of THIS COUNTRY ?
Tom I totally agree with you. Yet...if you're anti-top down (as am I) how can you argue for a military coup. Because those were so much fun in Argentina, Chile, Myamar (Burma damn it!) and a hundred other places.
FQ13
-
Tom I totally agree with you. Yet...if you're anti-top down (as am I) how can you argue for a military coup. Because those were so much fun in Argentina, Chile, Myamar (Burma damn it!) and a hundred other places.
FQ13
Because it would not be a "coup" It would be the Military leadership living up to it's oath to defend the Constitution from enemies "foreign and DOMESTIC." And if you don't think that this administration poses a clear and present danger to America you need to study more history and read what the "officials" are SAYING as opposed to what we are being told "they mean".
Even the Washington Post uses quotes. They speak English we do not need the socialist translation.
-
Because it would not be a "coup" It would be the Military leadership living up to it's oath to defend the Constitution from enemies "foreign and DOMESTIC." And if you don't think that this administration poses a clear and present danger to America you need to study more history and read what the "officials" are SAYING as opposed to what we are being told "they mean".
Even the Washington Post uses quotes. They speak English we do not need the socialist translation.
Well, I'll say we're both patriots, but the day a General so and so takes to the airwaves announcing a "temporary" state of emergency, is the day I take Badger's milk's advice and take to the swamps (sorry no hills around here) and start shootng anyone in a uniform. I don't care if its BO, or any other lawfully elected presindent they overthrow, even W.
FQ13 Who is thinking abut hoarding ammo even though he will be shot dead halfway though the first mag.
-
Well, I'll say we're both patriots, but the day a General so and so takes to the airwaves announcing a "temporary" state of emergency, is the day I take Badger's milk's advice and take to the swamps (sorry no hills around here) and start shootng anyone in a uniform. I don't care if its BO, or any other lawfully elected presindent they overthrow, even W.
FQ13 Who is thinking abut hoarding ammo even though he will be shot dead halfway though the first mag.
Congress critters who commit crimes are routinely removed from office,( It should happen far more often) the President is no different, If an administration is willfully harming the nation the military have a duty to remove it. Tom, Who would have waded the Rubicon
-
Congress critters who commit crimes are routinely removed from office,( It should happen far more often) the President is no different, If an administration is willfully harming the nation the military have a duty to remove it. Tom, Who would have waded the Rubicon
And look what that got Rome, a republic to an empire. I really believe (and our history backs me) that the rules of the game matter more than who wins or loses.We have suffered under corrupt fools before. BUT there was always an election 4 years later. Messing with that system, particularly if it means giving power to unelected, unaccountable guys in uniform strikes me as the mother of all bad ideas. Name one benevolent military dictatorship that didn't produce poisoned fruit (Ceaser's included). Call me a libertarian, but if someone calling himself a general ever takes power via a coup, I'll shoot him twice in the face before I salute him.
FQ13 who is not given to swagger or idle threats
0
-
Because it would not be a "coup" It would be the Military leadership living up to it's oath to defend the Constitution from enemies "foreign and DOMESTIC." And if you don't think that this administration poses a clear and present danger to America you need to study more history and read what the "officials" are SAYING as opposed to what we are being told "they mean".
Even the Washington Post uses quotes. They speak English we do not need the socialist translation.
It would be fulfilling their obligations to the Constitution.
If we are going to be kept to one set of rules, and BHO, etc. have their own rules, then it would be official, this union is over.
-
Had to THINK about my reply here. It seems that for all FQ's talk of teaching Political Science he does not actually THINK, just parrots "book answers". Maybe that's why he is a "teacher" rather than a researcher.
First, on successful Military Coups, The coup that brought Batista to power gave Cubans the highest standard of living in the Caribbean, until Rich boy Castro ruined the casinos Havana was well on it's way to becoming THE resort destination of the western hemisphere. Look at Vegas today and compare it to Cuba.
Secondly, in the modern US the only PRACTICLE solution to federal thievery by taxation and usurpation of power is the intervention of the military. In my original post I did not say COUP, which is the military taking over the government, I said "a temporary military administration ".
The group that removes the current misadministration needs several things,
1) Nation wide organization under a single chain of command to assure unity of action and policy.
2) trust and respect of the majority of the population.
3) Experience in rebuilding failed governments from the community level upward.
4) Integrated independent infrastructure that can coordinate deployment of food, medical, engineering and other assets to maintain the logistical requirements of the population and maintain order during the replacement process.
5) A proven commitment to the Constitution and the well being of America.
The only organization in the world that combines ALL those elements is the US armed forces.