Let's just tear up that silly Constitution

[Hawkmoon]

Here we go: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/us/politics/justice-breyer-sees-value-in-a-global-view-of-law.html?_r=0

Discussion?

[Andiron]

Our Founders were not infallible.  Any of those clowns having a lifetime gig is proof.

[brimic]

Eminent domain his home so a strip mall containing an abortion clinic, a gun shop, and a gay night club can be put in- its for the public good.

[De Selby]

What exactly is the problem with what justice breyer said?

[Firethorn]

Justice Breyer said last week that in a shrinking and increasingly interconnected world, understanding what is going on abroad is necessary and helpful, whether the topic is national security, free speech, securities regulation or antitrust law. As for citing the decisions of foreign and international tribunals, he said, that issue was a distraction. The decisions were not binding on American courts, he said, but they could be instructive.

We're humans.  We should be able to learn from others.

Indeed, as the Neckbeard from Florida posing online as a terrorist in Australia shows us, crossing borders in order to commit crimes, without ever physically doing so, is easier and easier. 

Learning from the achievements and mistakes of others, as well as being able to cooperate to bring more true criminals to justice is a good thing.

As is, hackers in Russia, China, and other states have way too much free reign.

[RoadKingLarry]

What exactly is the problem with what justice breyer said?

Not that you don't know the answer but...

The job of the United States Supreme Court is to rule on United States law as based on the Constitution of the United States.

The only group that has the authority to modify our laws based on European influence or any other international standards is the Congress and President.

If you want to live under EU laws your are welcome to stay over there.

[MechAg94]

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God."

[Hawkmoon]

What exactly is the problem with what justice breyer said?

That the Constitution should be interpreted in the light of current international sentiment? The problem is that it's the United States Constitution, and it is the highest law of the land. Other laws are supposed to be interpreted based on the Constitution -- the Constitution is not supposed to be interpreted on the basis of what other countries think.

[De Selby]

Not that you don't know the answer but...

The job of the United States Supreme Court is to rule on United States law as based on the Constitution of the United States.

The only group that has the authority to modify our laws based on European influence or any other international standards is the Congress and President.

If you want to live under EU laws your are welcome to stay over there.

Okay, can you quote the piece of the article or any statement by Justice Breyer ever that says we should or can modify laws based on international ones?

Because the article says "obviously they are non-binding", and then explicitly talks about how any mention of international law gets seized on as an excuse for people who don't like the decision.

Hawk moon - the Supreme Court doesn't just interpret the constitution.  But aside from that, how on earth is it wrong or unconstitutional to consider what is essentially reading material and not law from elsewhere???  The Supreme Court frequently cites law journal articles as well - i don't see how that's any different. 

[Hawkmoon]

Hawk moon - the Supreme Court doesn't just interpret the constitution.  But aside from that, how on earth is it wrong or unconstitutional to consider what is essentially reading material and not law from elsewhere???  The Supreme Court frequently cites law journal articles as well - i don't see how that's any different. 

No, they interpret lower-level laws through the lens of the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States.

[De Selby]

No, they interpret lower-level laws through the lens of the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States.

Sorry, but that is not an accurate description of what the court does.  The constitution establishes the court and gives it jurisdiction - it does not provide interpretive rules.  The constitution sometimes requires them to interpret laws based on state constitutions, state common law, and international treaties.

[MechAg94]

Sorry, but that is not an accurate description of what the court does.  The constitution establishes the court and gives it jurisdiction - it does not provide interpretive rules.  The constitution sometimes requires them to interpret laws based on state constitutions, state common law, and international treaties.

You seem to be actively avoiding the point.

[AJ Dual]

What exactly is the problem with what justice breyer said?

Obviously no constitution or body of law exists in a vacuum. Much of our laws, and the ideas in the Constitution, and the traditions of American jurisprudence find their basis in English common law, which further winds it's way back to a number of Roman/Latin and Celtic sources etc.

The problem comes in where we have to ask ourselves, what is Justice Breyer's intent?   And your deliberate effort to be obtuse aside, you know this as well as I do.

Is it truly to adapt or better apply the Constitution in changing times, or to truly new circumstances that did not exist at the time of the Founding? Or is it to upend, subvert, or bypass the Constitution entirely for anything and everything that certain political ideologies find inconvenient?

It risks reductio ad absurdum, if we do not hold certain legal traditions, or philosophies of governance or jurisprudence to be better than others elsewhere in the world, why even have a country? Why even have a United States? But then again, that is exactly what some people want.

[roo_ster]

I will take Breyer and his ilk seriously when they mumble about what they can learn about foreign laws contrary to their pre-existing anti-American, anti-COTUS, anti-limited gov't dispositions. 

Say, like waxing favorably eloquent over Uganda's "Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014" or Russia's law against grooming and propagandizing minors into pederasty.

Until then, it is just mining foreign law to support what they would like to do if they could ignore the COTUS.

[Hawkmoon]

Sorry, but that is not an accurate description of what the court does.  The constitution establishes the court and gives it jurisdiction - it does not provide interpretive rules.  The constitution sometimes requires them to interpret laws based on state constitutions, state common law, and international treaties.

No.

Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Where does that mention the Supreme Court of the United States being required to pay any heed to state or international laws in ruling on the constitutionality of federal laws?