| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Ignoring International Law |
| 2009-04-14 |
| There is a bizarre idea in leftist circles that U.S. judges should apply the standards of “International Law.” To U.S. cases. From the Jonathan Adler via Instapundit: For example, Dean Harold Koh of Yale Law School, mentioned as a possible Kerry Supreme Court nominee, has supported the idea that U.S. courts should expansively apply international legal precedents without the authorization of the president and Congress. There is one simple reason why this is contrary to everything America stands for. American political theory rest on the idea that all just law arises from the formally expressed will of the people. If at some stage of its development, the people did not vote on a law, the law has no validity. Even the Constitution itself was originally voted on and by design we can vote to amend it as we wish. How then, can a U.S. judge legitimately use a foreign concept for which the American voters have never cast ballots? By what legal theory are free people bound by the decisions of others in which they have no say? Arguing that judges can impose foreign standards against the will of America voters simply tosses overboard the founding justification for American justice that people should only be governed by law to which they consent. Sadly, this is just another symptom of the American left’s progressive (pun intended) abandonment of American concept of governance in favor of the more authoritarian European model. Incapable of conceiving of their own capacity for error and utterly convinced of their own moral rectitude, they have no intellectual or moral issues with using any means necessary to impose their will upon their fellow citizens. They decide what they want and then manufacture a means of getting it. Evoking some vague ”international Standards” let them them read the legal justification they want in the entrails of whatever monster of foreign law they want to slit open on that particular day. It’s not “international law” they wish to adopt but rather the sole authority to choose to decided what “international law” means on any particular day or in any particular circumstance. The American left is on a long dark road. |
| Posted by:mom |
| #2 Here's some of the law of Mexico, how about applying it here - Article 33 of the Mexican Constitution: "Article 33. Foreigners are those who do not possess the qualifications set forth in Article 30. They are entitled to the guarantees granted by Chapter I, Title I, of the present Constitution; but the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action. Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-04-14 20:04 |
| #1 It’s not “international law” they wish to adopt but rather the sole authority to choose to decided what “international law” means on any particular day or in any particular circumstance. That's known as 'emerging international law'. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-04-14 15:01 |