Justice O’Conner, Ignoring American Law?

[DmdNexus]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
same thing with the laws of other countries.  here we go by american law and the law elsewhere isn't relavant.  

In some respects the European Union is establishing common laws and procedures among its member nations... in regards to business and trade.

As well as there is International law, which a lot of nations prescribe to.

What is the natural extension to this trend?

What will the future be in 50 years.

Does any one think that the world will be as it is today?

Or will nations all over the world be connected and interwined closer than they are today. Even the smallest of nation will be players in the global economy.

Bob Dole and Bill Cliton spoke at the Kennedy Center a few weeks ago and they both spoke about world vision.

The US's world vision is democratize the rest of the world, and to bring other nations into the fold of "civilized" and law abiding nations. This will promote the world economy, a higher living standard for all people, decrease nation vs nation violence, and promote world peace.

The question is how to do this. Idealy through persausion... never through force.

Did MLK persuade America to give blacks equal rights by using violence? No!

Will GWB persuade the middle east to become democratic through force... no.

Violence begats violence. And the represcusions of Iraq will haunt America for decades.

To convince another nation to see America's point of view... America's world view... America must first respect their people, their laws, and their cultures.

[Hortlund]

Oh man this board just keeps getting better. This thread is truly an example of the quote from Wulfie in my sig.

[Dune]

Sikboy is right in that decisions from different states and different Federal circuits are not binding on each other.  However, both the states and Federal circuits can look at others to help them make their own decisions becuase the basis for all of their laws is the Consitution.

Horn, I would have guessed Jefferson felt that way:

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
- Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson really didn't like government at all.  He was much to fond of the French ideas of Enlightenment and lifting the human condition above the morass of etc....And besides, most of the Framers weren't all that fond of governments anyways.

However, as has been said, I can only imagine the chaos if all our laws were subject to change every 20 years.  And there is a mechanism to change the Constitution.  There are several.  Because the words of the document are subject to change.  However it is not an easy process.  Nor should it be.

And every time the Supremes take the stand the meaning of the document can be changed.  And this can be a problem.  

Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind.
- Hugo L. Black

Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
- Abraham Lincoln

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
- James Madison

I believe the basic truths in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should not be changed.  I believe that they are just as true now as they were when they were written.  Beliefs and feelings change with the times  The Constitution shouldn't change with them.  It should be a constant.  Not unchangable, but not easily changable.

[Horn]

Originally posted by Dune
However, as has been said, I can only imagine the chaos if all our laws were subject to change every 20 years.  And there is a mechanism to change the Constitution.  There are several.  Because the words of the document are subject to change.  However it is not an easy process.  Nor should it be.

Chaos indeed--imagine then throwing in all the various special interest parasites that have burrowed their way into the system! The basic thesis however still stands: Our lives are much, much more diverse than Jefferson's Gentleman Farmer and some of our rules are antiquated.

I'm not advocating doing away with existing laws, just updating them for currency. The definition of "militia" for instance and how it affects our interpretation of the document as just one example. There are several other examples but so as not to run on--the fundamental issue would be: Are we mature enough as a society to cast a ballot to change, delete or add to the basic contitutional document?

I think we could do it. If you a person were on the losing end of a law you would then have 19 years to convince everyone to change it back or revise it.

The Constitution should be a living document representative of the society it governs today--not a society of 200 years past.

h

[DmdNexus]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Oh man this board just keeps getting better. This thread is truly an example of the quote from Wulfie in my sig.

What the heck you expect from a BBS?
Get with the program you liberal biased retard!

[Rude]

To convince another nation to see America's point of view... America's world view... America must first respect their people, their laws, and their cultures.

Kinda like Sadam did with his people?

We didn't respect Sadam, however , we are respecting the wishes of the Iraqi people....but of course you only see the radicals killing our troops and make the assumption that they represent the majority of the Iraqi population.

Your preferred method has failed miserably for the past 50 years....all of this love is viewed by the radical elements as weakness.

The radical elements want the Muslim world of 1000 years ago...not a modern world....they fear what they do not understand....kinda like you:)

[DmdNexus]

Originally posted by Rude
We are respecting the wishes of the Iraqi people....

Really? Did the Iraqi people vote for this - before America started killing people them?

And now, it's not the Iraqis that are fighting American's... it's the terrorists from other countries. Well isn't that convenient.

You only see the radicals killing our troops and make the assumption that they represent the majority of the Iraqi population.

You can read my mind? You know what I assume?
Ah that's right because you know what the "majority of the Iraqi population" thinks and wants...

American soldiers are dieing every day... doesn't look like Iraqis want us there.

I think, you are programed by the right wing media to think what neo-nazi conservatives want YOU to think... you dont' think for your self... you just follow along like the rest of the sheep.

Baa baaaa baaa

[Pongo]

Originally posted by Mighty1
Why look at other countries if you are not going to use them as a guide?

I see it like a PC programmer looking at a Mac programmer’s code to decide how to write a game

sorry..and how is that bad again? Does it taint the game or something?

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Dune
Sikboy is right in that decisions from different states and different Federal circuits are not binding on each other.  However, both the states and Federal circuits can look at others to help them make their own decisions becuase the basis for all of their laws is the Consitution.

While the utility of courts using outside opinions to support their own is my whole point, I dissagree that this utility arises from the constitution.

-Sik

[capt. apathy]

But you're right, If you're talking about the federal system 9th circuit descisions are non-bindinig to 5th Circuit courts, unless they've been appealed to the supreme court.

I mean, it's pretty much the same situation, but I found it more compelling from the POV of State Courts, since we're talking about considering Alien legal rulings.

but it's still not a clean analogy.  the fact that if your state court ruling varies widely from simular rulings in another state, it will make apealing to a higher court much easier.  all cases in this country (on apeal) will eventually wind up before the same court,  making decisions in other courts relevant if not binding.

the day you can apeal a supream court verdict to a court of international law it will then become relevent for judges to consider rulings from other countries while interpreting american law.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
but it's still not a clean analogy.  the fact that if your state court ruling varies widely from simular rulings in another state, it will make apealing to a higher court much easier.  all cases in this country (on apeal) will eventually wind up before the same court,  making decisions in other courts relevant if not binding.

If the opinion in question has not been appealed to the supreme court (which, had it been that would make it binding, and tje SC case would be cited as manditory authority), the relationship of the courts to the supreme court is irrelevant. I don't see how the fact that it could be appealed has anything to do with it.

-Sik

[Dune]

How could it not?

While each state must decide based on its own laws, these laws must still be based on the Constitution.  If they violate it, they are unconstitutional and thrown out.  And the final voice on what the Constitution means, or put better, how it should be interpreted is the Supreme Court.

[JBA]

So should O'conner rule against gun ownership because the UK has a gun ban.
thats the problem. If she is looking at laws that we didn't vote on, through the legal process of congress and senate the she is making laws.

[yowser]

^^^Completely clueless.^^^

yowser