SirNitram wrote:So, how do you put 'So, despite the fact the SCOTUS aren't entirely impartial and logical in deriving their rulings, we should hop up and down about daring to consider the impact of our decisions on a global scale?' into flowery speech? I figure those here who can convert 'Fuck the world, I only care about the USA' into such pretty terms can find a way.
Blah blah, Nitram. Nations do what is best for themselves, according to their laws--which are hardly perfect but are instead designed to meet the needs of those specific nations and are often thus compromises to operate within those particular needs and circumstances. Internationalism is dangerous because it subordinates the particular aims of a nation to others which might have negative intentions toward it; or worse, to the utopian ideals of a particular group which has gained power in diplomatic circles. Etc.
On a more serious note, flowery language or not, sovereign right or duty or whatever you would like to dress things up as, do you seriously think anyone's lot in life will be improved by waiting for Congress to pass an amendment saying, in effect, the SCOTUS will be trusted to use discretion? Sure, an amendment would be great. Shall we get one for them to use their own preconceived notions of right and wrong, too?
I don't think such an amendment would be great. I think the Supreme Court has to much bloody power as it is. The only amendment I want right now is one repealing the seventeenth amendment. Maybe if we had an appointed Senate less wacky legislation would get made into law to be shot down by the Supreme Court in the first place.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.
SirNitram wrote:So, how do you put 'So, despite the fact the SCOTUS aren't entirely impartial and logical in deriving their rulings, we should hop up and down about daring to consider the impact of our decisions on a global scale?' into flowery speech? I figure those here who can convert 'Fuck the world, I only care about the USA' into such pretty terms can find a way.
Blah blah, Nitram. Nations do what is best for themselves, according to their laws--which are hardly perfect but are instead designed to meet the needs of those specific nations and are often thus compromises to operate within those particular needs and circumstances. Internationalism is dangerous because it subordinates the particular aims of a nation to others which might have negative intentions toward it; or worse, to the utopian ideals of a particular group which has gained power in diplomatic circles. Etc.
I'd say it's quite a leap in logic to go from 'considering the international laws' and then going straight to 'internationalism'. And it is arguably what is best for a nation which regularly imports far more than it exports is to pay some attention to other nations. Of course, this gets in the way of the 'fuck 'em all, we're in charge' credo some subscribe to.
On a more serious note, flowery language or not, sovereign right or duty or whatever you would like to dress things up as, do you seriously think anyone's lot in life will be improved by waiting for Congress to pass an amendment saying, in effect, the SCOTUS will be trusted to use discretion? Sure, an amendment would be great. Shall we get one for them to use their own preconceived notions of right and wrong, too?
I don't think such an amendment would be great. I think the Supreme Court has to much bloody power as it is. The only amendment I want right now is one repealing the seventeenth amendment. Maybe if we had an appointed Senate less wacky legislation would get made into law to be shot down by the Supreme Court in the first place.
I'm sure what you want to happen with the election of senators would fill it's own thread. The second amendment I 'proposed' was an attempt to get some realism injected into the ideals here.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
SirNitram wrote:
I'd say it's quite a leap in logic to go from 'considering the international laws' and then going straight to 'internationalism'.
No it's not. It's not in their mandate to consider international law--it's derived from a different lineage than American judicial precepts, being as generous as possible to it--and they're really, really stretching. Internationalism is an appropriate term for an act which favours an international agenda over that of a country; which by definition this is (in exceeding their mandate).
And it is arguably what is best for a nation which regularly imports far more than it exports is to pay some attention to other nations. Of course, this gets in the way of the 'fuck 'em all, we're in charge' credo some subscribe to.
No, it doesn't. In fact, the entire strategy of maintaining a high value of the dollar is based around supporting this and making this feasable. There is more involved in trade than simple volume.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.
SCOTUS has used internetional precedent for years. Remember, the majority of the SCOTUS decisions are not based on the constitution directly but on precedent, the biggest precedent being English common law.
If there is no precedent in the US for a particular case, and the Constitution is either has nothing to say or is murky on an issue, it has been a common practice to then consider precedents set in other countries.
It's a perfectly reasonable practice, SCOTUS should not be limited to just precedent set in the US. If a perfectly reasonable precedent has been set in another nation, then SCOTUS should import that precedent into the US, unless that precedent goes against the constitution or US law.
To not import precedent, would be the ultimate in wheel reinvention.
Still better than the Washington Compost, or the New Jew Times.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
When I think of "International Law" I think of a balding milquetoast bureaucrat in a drab grey office building in Belgium drafting a statement no one will ever actually read, condemning the US for executing poor defenseless serial killers.
International law barely even exists, save on paper. Strong nations avoid fighting one another because they all have nukes, and weak nations try to get away with anything that won't catch them an assbeating from the strong. At best, international law is simply a listing of assbeat-worthy offenses for the weak nations to try and avoid. (IE, don't manufacture nukes, or the countries that already have them will bitch in the UN.)
If Religion and Politics were characters on a soap opera, Religion would be the one that goes insane with jealousy over Politics' intimate relationship with Reality, and secretly murder Politics in the night, skin the corpse, and run around its apartment wearing the skin like a cape shouting "My votes now! All votes for me! Wheeee!" -- Lagmonster
GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:When I think of "International Law" I think of a balding milquetoast bureaucrat in a drab grey office building in Belgium drafting a statement no one will ever actually read, condemning the US for executing poor defenseless serial killers.
By jove, I think he's got it right!
Or the Kyoto protocol trying to assrape US industry, while ignoring the
Chinese
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Still better than the Washington Compost, or the New Jew Times.
Haha
Those two papers aren't run by a cult leader
"Right now we can tell you a report was filed by the family of a 12 year old boy yesterday afternoon alleging Mr. Michael Jackson of criminal activity. A search warrant has been filed and that search is currently taking place. Mr. Jackson has not been charged with any crime. We cannot specifically address the content of the police report as it is confidential information at the present time, however, we can confirm that Mr. Jackson forced the boy to listen to the Howard Stern show and watch the movie Private Parts over and over again."
Sir Nitram, you seem to be missing the point. The reason that we have a written constitution, with carefully defined limits on the powers of government is to prevent abuse, even unintentioned, well-meaning abuse that can come from going beyond the bounds of the law.
Perhaps I can illustrate my point best by making a contrast between the American and French Revolutions. After the American Revolution, the founding fathers set up a government under the Articles of Confederation, and then found out the hard way that they had limited the power of government too much. But they were still very very wary of an overpowerful government, and the constitution was drafted to provide a more powerful, more effective government, but one in which the power of government still had certain definite limits beyond which it could not go. Agents of the government, and elected officials of the government had certain limits on their powers, and they could not exceed them, even when they might feel that exceeding their authority in a particular instance, and forcing something through, would be in the best interests of the people. The reason that they are forbidden to do this, is that the framers of the constitution realized very well that what could be done for ostensibly noble reasons could also be done for ignoble ones. Also, an agent of the government exceeding his authority might sincerely believe himself to be acting in the bests of the people, but being a mere human being, he might be dreadfully wrong.
So we have these limits on governmental power. Sometimes they seem to get in the way of what appears a good thing, but you ignore them at your peril. The overriding moral imperative behind the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government is (or at least is supposed to be) the rule of law. The rule of law, constraining though it may seem at times, was thought - rightly I believe - to be the best assurance that people's rights and freedoms would be respected, and that society would remain stable and prosperous.
Now contrast that with the aftermath of the French Revolution, where the overriding principle was not the rule of law, but rather the creation of a better society.
Now that sounds very noble doesn't it? Who could be against a better society? Who could not want a better society?
What many people don't realize is that the American founding fathers wanted a better society every bit as much as the French revolutionaries did (and people today forget just how radical the American experiment with democratic republicanism really was back in that age of monarchies). They merely differed on how best to bring it about. The difference is one of focus. The founding fathers focused on the means by which is created, and considered that first and foremost. The French revolutionaries focused on the goal first and foremost, and were not especially particular about the methods they used to achieve their goal. The founding fathers wanted to create a means to achieving that better society that would restrain the worst impulses of men. The French revolutionaries wanted to create a better society by any means necessary.
I think history vindicated the American approach. The French method led to the reign of terror, the rise of Napoleon, a pan-European war, the restoration of the French monarchy, and they're in what? their fifth republic now?
The problem with focusing on the noble goal, and using whatever means you think necessary to get there is twofold.
One, it creates a terrible precedent: governmental authority can be exceeded. This will lead inevitably to abuses of power. They may begin with noble aims in mind, but Lord Acton was right; power corrupts. Eventually, governmental authority will be exceeded for aims that are not worthy or noble. This is a dangerous precedent.
Two, when you focus so much on an idealistic goal, it becomes all too easy to see your opponents as not just having different opinions or views, not even just misguided, but actually as enemies - enemies of what is good. Remember, how can anyone be against a better society? Well, when you are so focused on that goal, it becomes very easy to see your opponents as against a better society. And if they are against a better society, what does that say about them? They must be bad people. This is where all the bitter, partisan character attacks come from in politics. You see your opponent, not as a man who wants basically the same thing you want - a better society - but merely differs on how best to achieve it. Instead, you see your opponent as opposed to what you want; opposed to that better society, probably for selfish reasons - he's got it good as things are now. And since what you want is so obviously a good thing, your opponent is opposed to what is good. That bastard! How can he be so rotten and mean? He's an enemy. He has to be stopped! This is exactly the sort of thinking that allowed the idealists of the French Revolution to define so many as "enemies of the people", and cut their heads off in carload lots. They sincerely believed that they were acting for the greater good of society. But today, we see them as monsters.
We have the rule of law in this country to protect us from these two very undesirable consequences. The Supreme Court of the United States must act within the law. What Justice O'Connor proposes exceeds the law, and though it may seem to be for laudable reasons, it will create far more problems down the road. I am firmly in agreement with the founding fathers. The rule of law is the best way to preserve a free society. No one in any branch of government should be allowed to act outside that principle.
Pithy response: Constitution, shmonstitution. It's just a damn scrap of paper, as Kaiser Wilhelm might say.
Real response: the way some of you are acting one might think this is the first time the government has exceeded the power given it in the Constitution. In reality, the government has always seeked to expand its power outside the Constitution. First Bank of the United States ring a bell? The Louisiana Purchase? The President's cabinet? None of those things are or were specifically provided for in the Constitution. More relevantly, the power of judicial review is not explicitly stated in the Constitution; it was decided that the Supreme Court had that power (by the Supreme Court, natch.) It hasn't destroyed the country yet, and it probably won't destroy it now.
Andrew J. wrote:More relevantly, the power of judicial review is not explicitly stated in the Constitution; it was decided that the Supreme Court had that power (by the Supreme Court, natch.) It hasn't destroyed the country yet, and it probably won't destroy it now.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't scream and hollar about it a whole fuck of a lot to keep the government from committing to many egregious violations.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.
Perinquus wrote:Sir Nitram, you seem to be missing the point.
*snip*
I suggest we save this and laminate it and post it in full whenever Nitram
gets onto his tangential line of reasoning about how European governments
seem to work just fine whith all these powers...
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Lord MJ wrote:
SCOTUS has used internetional precedent for years. Remember, the majority of the SCOTUS decisions are not based on the constitution directly but on precedent, the biggest precedent being English common law.
If there is no precedent in the US for a particular case, and the Constitution is either has nothing to say or is murky on an issue, it has been a common practice to then consider precedents set in other countries.
It's a perfectly reasonable practice, SCOTUS should not be limited to just precedent set in the US. If a perfectly reasonable precedent has been set in another nation, then SCOTUS should import that precedent into the US, unless that precedent goes against the constitution or US law.
To not import precedent, would be the ultimate in wheel reinvention.
Our precedent is based on English Common Law, yes--and on Germanic and Roman traditions before that. We can refer back to the Code of Justinian easily enough. But that isn't the point. The point is that international law has evolved seperately in the context of those traditions from our legal code. It's one thing to refer back; another to refer laterally to a totally different tradition (especially one that is based heavily on the Code Napoleon, like much modern international law is that is produced by the Eurocrats).
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.
Andrew J. wrote:More relevantly, the power of judicial review is not explicitly stated in the Constitution; it was decided that the Supreme Court had that power (by the Supreme Court, natch.) It hasn't destroyed the country yet, and it probably won't destroy it now.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't scream and hollar about it a whole fuck of a lot to keep the government from committing to many egregious violations.
If they make a ruling based on international law that I oppose, I'll scream and hollar (holler?). Until then I'm, all for it.
Andrew J. wrote:More relevantly, the power of judicial review is not explicitly stated in the Constitution; it was decided that the Supreme Court had that power (by the Supreme Court, natch.) It hasn't destroyed the country yet, and it probably won't destroy it now.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't scream and hollar about it a whole fuck of a lot to keep the government from committing to many egregious violations.
If they make a ruling based on international law that I oppose, I'll scream and hollar (holler?). Until then I'm, all for it.
So you only worry about proctecting the sancity of the Constitution when you agree with it? Wow, you must have totally missed the whole point of that little peice of paper.
Whoopee the wonderful, "The constitution is infalliable and totally omnipitent" crowd are out in force.
Just out of curiosity, what in the constitution is there about the war on drugs, asset forfiture, digital copyright, computer fraud or a load more things.
Dont look to the dead to know what the fuck is happening today.
I would think that the SCOTUS would be stupid not to look at what the rest of the world is doing. After all, and sorry if this is a huge fucking revelation, the US is PART of the world at large.
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
Keevan_Colton wrote:Whoopee the wonderful, "The constitution is infalliable and totally omnipitent" crowd are out in force.
Hey fool, we've had an uninterrupted democracy for over 225 years,
I'd say we're doing it just fine.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Perinquus wrote:Sir Nitram, you seem to be missing the point.
*snip*
I suggest we save this and laminate it and post it in full whenever Nitram
gets onto his tangential line of reasoning about how European governments
seem to work just fine whith all these powers...
I see that none of the point actually got across. Laminate it if you want, I'm sure it'll make a lovely strawman when someone points out that ideals and reality tend to diverge.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
Stormbringer wrote:
So you only worry about proctecting the sancity of the Constitution when you agree with it? Wow, you must have totally missed the whole point of that little peice of paper.
Hey, that's my whole philosophy of, life; when people, systems, institutions, and modes of thought give me what I want, I'll support them; when they don't, fuck 'em.
And yes, I am planning to die a virgin.
Tell you what, since it's Halloween, lemme try to give the libertarians a little scare. Ready? Here goes:
We should want the Supreme Court to use international law, because it will only draw us closer to the era of integration and the elimination of national sovereignty, when all people serve the same government, follow the same laws, have the same appearance, experience the same culture, eat the same food, watch the same entertainment, and think the same thoughts. Do not be afraid; the one-world government will be like a Big Brother, constantly watching over you, protecting you.
Pretty good, eh? It's like every libertarian's worst nightmare about globalization and oppressive government wrapped up into a concise little package, with a little Orweel thrown in 'cause I don't have enough talen to be original. It was damn hard to resist the temptation to put "You will be assimilated, resistance is futile" at the end, believe you me.
If someone can show me where the vaunted Constitution says anything about not basing decisions on international law, please point it out to me. As previously pointed out, the Constitution is actually less than useless in most if not all areas of law- American law is based, like it or not, on English common law, not the Consitution. It is perfectly within the court's ability to cite law from other jurisdictions as persuasive reasoning- this is done in all common law jurisdictions.
Andrew J. wrote:It hasn't destroyed the country yet, and it probably won't destroy it now.
By itself it won't no. But our rights and freedoms are far more circumscribed today than they were in the years just after the constitution was ratified. It's exactly like the old saw about dropping a frog in boiling water versus putting in cold water and bringing it to the boil. No one would stand for a huge, blatant violation, but they'll let a lot of little ones slip by over time.
Keevan_Colton wrote:Whoopee the wonderful, "The constitution is infalliable and totally omnipitent" crowd are out in force.
Strawman alert!
I never said or even hinted that I thought the constitution was infallible. What I did say is that the rule of law is the best available means to achieve a better, more prosperous, freer society. Perfect no, but the best that is humanly possible, yes, at least so far.
Perinquus wrote:
I never said or even hinted that I thought the constitution was infallible. What I did say is that the rule of law is the best available means to achieve a better, more prosperous, freer society. Perfect no, but the best that is humanly possible, yes, at least so far.
Yep, and this is about looking at other laws to see how to deal in a legal way with situations of law.
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
Andrew J. wrote:It hasn't destroyed the country yet, and it probably won't destroy it now.
By itself it won't no. But our rights and freedoms are far more circumscribed today than they were in the years just after the constitution was ratified. It's exactly like the old saw about dropping a frog in boiling water versus putting in cold water and bringing it to the boil. No one would stand for a huge, blatant violation, but they'll let a lot of little ones slip by over time.
Just give me a second to look up "circumscribed"...limited, okay. I could argue about whether or not our current rights actually are more curtailed-I think it's true with some rights but not with others-but I won't, because this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with violating an individual's rights, so your entire post a is a giant red herring. Hell, if anything, looking to more liberal European laws will actually increase individual rights.
