NEWS: Sandra Day O'Connor Fears U.S. Dictatorship

Originally posted by Muaddib

No Marg, you, and some people want to believe what "you want to believe". All I did was post statements made by O'Connors and show what she means by "the strong-arming" which according to her is being done by Republicans in congress. Republicans in Congress are now a majority, and the new resolution to reafirm the independence of the U.S. was passed now that Republicans are the mayority.

No, is not what we want to believe but rather the fact that she was not the only judge that did the same, actually 6 of the judges also has done the same.

Now, the whole fuss about all this was made by DeLay because he was not happy with the desicion about the terri case.

What you fail to see is that DeLay has been making all he can to restrict the supreme court and mold them to his radical religious and conservative views due to bipartisan Reason he even has gone as far as to want to impeachment of judges and cutting judicial budgest.

Go back to post by loam and downstar

posted on 16-3-2006 at 05:14 PM

posted on 16-3-2006 at 03:54 PM

DeLay is nothing than another clown in the king’s court he was the one that made all the fuss about the whole issue.

Oconnor sees all these attempt to step over the judiciary as one of the first step toward dictatorship.

Because after all the judiciary is the one that actually serve to protect our constitutional rights.

So Muadibb you are making a big issue of something that actually was made by the Kinds of DeLay to support your debate.

Look back again and read the whole story and look at the meaning of the whole issue that she mades against some Republicans in high positions.


[edit on 17-3-2006 by marg6043]

Originally posted by loam
OK, I've not commented upon the whole "dictatorship" thing, largely because I'm more inclined to see our current status along the lines of Sandra Day O'Connor's statement about "beginnings"...

Just wanted to scoot in here and say that I agree, we are in the "beginnings", not in a full-fledged dictatorship. However, as long as there is a fan base that supports what GWB is doing, then the rest of us can only just watch it grow and become full-fledged. Then we will be in the "ends" and NONE of us will be able to do a thing.

Remember, Hitler had a similar fan base who supported him to the "end".

[edit on 17-3-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by marg6043
Muaddib

You have it so twisted that you have lost yourself in the whole opinion that you have created on the issue of using foreign law and Oconnor's comment.

But that is ok it happens.

Marg, i don't have anything twisted...listen to Loam, according to him a resolution that was written to reaffirm the Independence of the United States" is only a farse...yet he does not provide any information from that resolution, which tells me he has not read it.

[edit on 18-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by loam
Let's say it all together, now... x-e-n-o-p-h-o-b-i-a

Maudib:

You fail to understand how potential legislation like the "Reaffirmation of American Independence Resolution" threatens the very core of our Constitution. You spout off at the mouth about murky, unverifiable NWO plots and fail to see the very real risk sitting before you.
..............................

Loam...I am getting tired of your stupid and insulting comments, but I will put you down on this issue once and for all. I have made mention of the Declaration of Independence to see if you would remember one of the reasons why it was written, I have given you over and over the benefit of the doubt, but as you have demonstrated, you do not deserve either respect, nor the benefit of the doubt.

Let's see what was one of the reasons for the forefathers writting the Declaration of Independence....

.......................
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
...................................

Excerpted from.
www.ushistory.org...

Certainly, a person, like loam, who has claimed to be most knowledgeable about legal matters of the United States, does not know the Declaration of independence of the United States?..... It cannot be true....or can it?

Anyways, let's not forget the main goals of the Declaration of Independence....

.......................
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Excerpted from above link.

What is it exactly that Sandra Day O'Connors wanted to do again?....

[edit on 18-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Anyways...for anyone interested to know the truth about the resolution, here is a link to it and an excerpt.

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that judicial determinations regarding the meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based on judgments, laws, or pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such foreign judgments, laws, or pronouncements inform an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

Excerpted from.
capwiz.com...://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.RES.97:

[edit on 18-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by marg6043

No, is not what we want to believe but rather the fact that she was not the only judge that did the same, actually 6 of the judges also has done the same.
..........................

Wow, 6 judges?....humm, would you like to see what these judges have been doing Marg?....

Let's see what the fuss is about shall we?...

Is Relying on Foreign Law Impeachable?

"By what conceivable warrant can nine lawyers presume to be the authoritative conscience of the Nation?" So asked an incredulous Justice Antonin Scalia in dissent to the latest outrage by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Five activist justices (not even nine) imposed their personal social preference on every American voter, state legislator, congressman, and juror. Adding insult to injury, the supremacist five used foreign laws, "international opinion," and even an unratified treaty to rationalize overturning more than 200 years of American law and history!

Excerpted from.
www.eagleforum.org...

Here is a different take by Chief Judge Edith Jones on this issue.

Chief Judge Edith Jones: The Propriety [NOT] of Using International Law in Constitutional Interpretation
Yesterday, Chief Judge Edith Jones (5th Circuit) presented a talk on behalf of the Federalist Society at Texas Tech School of Law. Relying heavily on Supreme Court opinions in death penalty cases (Trop v. Dulles, Thompson v. Oklahoma, Standford v. Kentucky, Atkins v. Virginia, and Roper v. Simmons) Judge Jones highlighted the absurdity of deference to international law.

What originally started out as decoration in dicta (Trop), undoubtedly bolstering monstrous egos, has become an accepted practice in the reasoning of judicial opinions. Turning to the Law of Nations, the high court of Zimbabwe, and various other human rights treaties around the world, the Supremes have not only watered down well established American common law, but have also provided for unpredictability in future decisions. Where will it end?

Judge Jones pointed out that while the framers were well-versed in laws of other nations, and used such knowledge in formulating our Constitution (how else would it be written), it is not proper for judges to use similar sources in interpreting our Constitution.

It is interesting to me that liberals are comfortable with this practice. Given that Dems must rely on the judiciary to legislate for them these days, I suppose that using international law sources is the best way to create new law in light of well established common law. In other words, following precedent doesn't quite accomplish their goals of writing new laws.

Excerpted from.
sonyasgottascream.typepad.com...

In the above case Judge Jones thinks that even using foreign laws to interpret our Constitution, is not proper. The most important part of her opinion, is the last part that I put on bold above.

According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Justice O’Connor also encouraged federal judges to give more weight to international court decisions.

The Declaration of Independence announced that one of the chief causes of the American Revolution was that King George had “combined to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws.” With growing frequency, the Supreme Court has relied upon decisions of foreign judicial tribunals when deciding American constitutional and statutory cases. Five Supreme Court justices have written or joined opinions that cited foreign authorities -- including courts in Jamaica, India, Zimbabwe, and the European Union -- to justify its decisions. Lower Federal courts are beginning to follow this disturbing trend.

Excerpted from.
www.house.gov...


[edit on 18-3-2006 by Muaddib]

If any of the naysayers has even bothered to read the resolution, would you excerpt from the link provided on the resolution, or any other link that has the entire bill, which part according to any of you is "the beginning of a dictatorship"?.......

If interpreting the law according to The United States Constitution is "the beginning of a dictatorship"..... I guess the naysayers think the United States has been a dictatorship since The United States was declared an independent country......

[edit on 18-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
If any of the naysayers has even bothered to read the resolution, would you excerpt from the link provided on the resolution, or any other link that has the entire bill, which part according to any of you is "the beginning of a dictatorship"?.......

This part is quite worrying:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that judicial determinations regarding the meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based on judgments, laws, or pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such foreign judgments, laws, or pronouncements inform an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

The legislature has no say in how the judicial branch performs it's role as interpreter of the law. It creates the law, and the judicial branch has an obligation to apply that law- but it is the judicial branch, not the legislature, which does the applying! To try to tell the judicial branch how it is supposed to interpret the law is a blatant attack on the concept of separation of powers as well as judicial review.

It's as bad as Congress saying, "we're passing this law, and this is how the judicial branch will rule if it ever gets challenged." It simply is not for Congress to determine how the judiciary applies the law.

No separation of powers means no checks and balances. No checks and balances is the (or at least, one) start of the road to dicatorship.

It doesn't really matter anyway, because this bill is just congressional bluster- there's no way it would be upheld as Constitutional even if it was signed into law.

To say nothing of how this resolution attempts to make originalist interpretation a necessary feature of judicial review!

[edit on 18-3-2006 by koji_K]

for a bunch of people who are so into the "free market" and "world economy that they'd blame any future downfalls of our economy to the demise (or mayube it wasn't a demise) of a port deal......ummmm.....judges basing our laws on foreign laws and international laws......

seems to me that first, the more we give these foriegn financial powers reason to believe we will shirk international laws, the more their money will drift to other destinationis. and the more our economies become intertwined, the more our legal system will have to bend to these laws.

so, aren't their goals contrary to each other?

and which seems more dangerous to our sovereignty, "free trade" and it outsourcing, big trade deficits.....or a few judges using a few internation/foreign laws as a reference to make a few decisions?

koji_K: You got that one right.

Maudib (and others like him) want the judiciary to become a rubber stamp, eliminating their role as an independent branch of government...

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by loam
Let's say it all together, now... x-e-n-o-p-h-o-b-i-a

Maudib:

You fail to understand how potential legislation like the "Reaffirmation of American Independence Resolution" threatens the very core of our Constitution. You spout off at the mouth about murky, unverifiable NWO plots and fail to see the very real risk sitting before you.
..............................

Loam...I am getting tired of your stupid and insulting comments, but I will put you down on this issue once and for all.

Not likely. The logic of your position is so contorted in the extreme, it could be sold in amusement parks for entertainment.

Originally posted by Muaddib
I have made mention of the Declaration of Independence to see if you would remember one of the reasons why it was written, I have given you over and over the benefit of the doubt, but as you have demonstrated, you do not deserve either respect, nor the benefit of the doubt.

Careful....your true colors are showing.... In fact, I think your statement demonstrates why the nonsense you espouse should be vehemently opposed.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Let's see what was one of the reasons for the forefathers writting the Declaration of Independence....

.......................
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
...................................

Excerpted from.
www.ushistory.org...

That's a nice bit of trickery there, but what the passage actually refers to was the imposition of King George's and the British Parliament's rule over the colonies in a manner that the colonists viewed as unjust and inequitable. They saw themselves as British citizens, who by simple virtue of their location in the New World, were not receiving the same protections and freedoms enjoyed by other British citizens found in the Motherland. That passage does NOT refer to some other "foreign" power....

Originally posted by Muaddib
Certainly, a person, like loam, who has claimed to be most knowledgeable about legal matters of the United States, does not know the Declaration of independence of the United States?..... It cannot be true....or can it?

No, only more knowledgeable than you. :shk:

Originally posted by Muaddib
Anyways, let's not forget the main goals of the Declaration of Independence....

.......................
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Excerpted from above link.

What is it exactly that Sandra Day O'Connors wanted to do again?....

Another lie.

Show me a single passage from Sandra Day O'connor, where she wishes to subordinate (look up the word, if you don't understand its meaning) American judicial decisions to foreign determinations.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Here is a different take by Chief Judge Edith Jones

Give me a break... Yeah, I can easily see why you would respect the extremism of Edith Jones.

She commented during oral arguments in Waltman v. International Paper involving female plaintiff who had complained of a hostile work environment that included verbal and physical inappropriateness, that the behavior of a man who had pinched the woman's breast was not so objectionable because he had subsequently apologized and at least she hadn't been raped. Jones also reportedly complained, during a last-minute hearing on a death penalty stay, that the proceeding was causing her to miss her son's birthday party.

Source.

Now there's a judge worth respecting...


[edit on 18-3-2006 by loam]

Alright, loam, Muaddib, enough sniping. Make your points without the petty squabbling.

Originally posted by koji_K
.........................
The legislature has no say in how the judicial branch performs it's role as interpreter of the law. It creates the law, and the judicial branch has an obligation to apply that law- but it is the judicial branch, not the legislature, which does the applying! To try to tell the judicial branch how it is supposed to interpret the law is a blatant attack on the concept of separation of powers as well as judicial review.
No separation of powers means no checks and balances. No checks and balances is the (or at least, one) start of the road to dicatorship.
.......................................
It doesn't really matter anyway, because this bill is just congressional bluster- there's no way it would be upheld as Constitutional even if it was signed into law.

To say nothing of how this resolution attempts to make originalist interpretation a necessary feature of judicial review!

[edit on 18-3-2006 by koji_K]

You are talking about check and balances and when one branch of the government is upholding their part on check and balances to let another branch of the government remember that they are all here to uphold the Constitution of the United States and our own laws, and not the laws of foreign countries, like some people want to do and you say there is "no checks and balances?.......

koji, perhaps you are an stranger to the Constitution, but the forefathers made sure that all the world understood that the law of the land from that day when the forefathers signed the independence of the United States forward that all interpretations of the law had to be done in accordance to our Constitution, that of the United States government and not the Constitution and the decisions reached by international courts.

I am amazed that so many people around here claim to know the Constitution and that according to them "the U.S. is becoming a dictatorship" because the legislative branch is making the judicial branch remember what they are supposed to do?......

The judicial branch is to interpret the laws according to our Constitution, not the Constitution or the decisions reached by foreign countries.....

[edit on 18-3-2006 by Muaddib]

I am amazed that so many people around here claim to know the Constitution and that according to them "the U.S. is becoming a dictatorship" because the legislative branch is making the judicial branch remember what they are supposed to do?...... Said Muaddib.....


Is this a trick question?


Because to me the entire insinuation by the justice was an obvious attempt to catch those with a "knowing".....Only some of us would understand.

Case Closed.

Originally posted by intrepid
Alright, loam, Muaddib, enough sniping. Make your points without the petty squabbling.

But it makes interesting reading don't you think?

About the subject of the thread, SDO has always leaned to the left and what she's saying doesn't surprise me. She knows that she can cause a stir by making comments as such and she's getting what she wanted.

The only way that the United States could ever become a dictatorship is to lean so liberal in their way of life as to allow rights to any and everyone.

The next thing you know is that we should allow 'reformed' child-killers to take part of our political processes.

Originally posted by Muaddib
You are talking about check and balances and when one branch of the government is upholding their part on check and balances to let another branch of the government remember that they are all here to uphold the Constitution of the United States and our own laws, and not the laws of foreign countries, like some people want to do and you say there is "no checks and balances?.......

koji, perhaps you are an stranger to the Constitution, but the forefathers made sure that all the world understood that the law of the land from that day when the forefathers signed the independence of the United States forward that all interpretations of the law had to be done in accordance to our Constitution, that of the United States government and not the Constitution and the decisions reached by international courts.

I am amazed that so many people around here claim to know the Constitution and that according to them "the U.S. is becoming a dictatorship" because the legislative branch is making the judicial branch remember what they are supposed to do?......

The judicial branch is to interpret the laws according to our Constitution, not the Constitution or the decisions reached by foreign countries.....

[edit on 18-3-2006 by Muaddib]

More Spaghetti...Thanks, but I ain't eatin'...

Once again, your conclusory statements have no basis in fact or history. Where is your evidence that consideration by the judiciary of foreign decisions is expressly prohibited by the Constitution? Show me the exact words in the Constitution that tell the Judicial Branch how they must conduct the exercise of "interpretation."

Here is Article III.

You speak of our "forefathers", but inaccurately identify the respect they held for the judiciary's plenary powers of interpretation. Here's what HAMILTON had to say:

..."there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers"...

...And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution.

...

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body...

...

It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.

If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.

FEDERALIST No. 78

But you think Congress has a right to tell the Judiciary how to do their job?

The problem here, Mauddib, is that you are complaining about a "problem" that doesn't exist. No court in the United States says we are subordinate to foreign decisions...Not a single one.

The real issue is that some, in an effort to impose their own political agenda, seek to invalidate the independent judgment of the judiciary by hobbling its Constitutionally granted interpretive role.

What you advocate is repugnant to the Constitution. Plain and simple.


[edit on 18-3-2006 by loam]

Originally posted by loam
The real issue is that some, in an effort to impose their own political agenda, seek to invalidate the independent judgment of the judiciary by hobbling its Constitutionally granted interpretive role.

What you advocate is repugnant to the Constitution. Plain and simple.

And the Guilty party was. . . Tom DLay and this man wants to be president.

Yeah he will be the perfect example of a theocratic dictator.

If it was for him we would do without the supreme court altogether.

Well, all I'm gonna say is, France is burning again, and in Great Britain you need to have a license to own a TV. They actually have TV Police looking out for scofflaws!

Do we really want to trust those people with our laws?

[edit on 18-3-2006 by jsobecky]

why not, look at the bunch we have in washington, we have to trust them with them..........

Came across the following law.com article which I think is relevant to this discussion (if not the thread itself!).

Justice Ginsburg Says Death Threat Fueled by Dispute Over International Law

In a speech last month at the Constitutional Court of South Africa, Ginsburg suggested the threat was prompted by bills introduced by Republicans in Congress that would prohibit federal courts from referring to foreign laws or rulings in interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

"Although I doubt the current measures will garner sufficient votes to pass, it is disquieting that they have attracted sizable support," said Ginsburg. "And one not-so-small concern -- they fuel the irrational fringe." She then revealed the online threat.

Ginsburg sums up the role of foreign law pretty well here. I highlighted one of the points I tried to make in my last posts:

International and multinational charters and courts "today play a prominent part in our world," Ginsburg said. "The U.S. judicial system will be poorer ... if we do not both share our experience with, and learn from, legal systems with values and a commitment to democracy similar to our own."

Citing criticisms of the practice by Justice Antonin Scalia and 7th Circuit appeals Judge Richard Posner, Ginsburg cautioned that "Foreign opinions are not authoritative; they set no binding precedent for the U.S. judge. But they can add to the store of knowledge relevant to the solution of trying questions. Yes, we should approach foreign legal materials with sensitivity to our differences, deficiencies, and imperfect understanding, but imperfection, I believe, should not lead us to abandon the effort to learn what we can from the experience and good thinking foreign sources may convey."

Ginsburg also noted that "Judges in the United States are free to consult all manner of commentary -- restatements, treatises, what law professors or even law students write copiously in law reviews, for example. If we can consult those writings, why not the analysis of a question similar to the one we confront contained in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the German Constitutional Court, or the European Court of Human Rights?"

Finally,

Ginsburg chose South Africa to discuss the issue at length, in part because that country's 1996 constitution states that when interpreting its bill of rights, courts "must consider international law; and may consider foreign law."

I think that's a very telling constitutional provision, because it sums up the role of international and foreign law in our own (US) legal system, as well as that of many others. International law must be considered, and foreign law may. These are symptoms of a functioning and healthy legal system.

[edit on 19-3-2006 by koji_K]

Originally posted by Muaddib
You are talking about check and balances and when one branch of the government is upholding their part on check and balances to let another branch of the government remember that they are all here to uphold the Constitution of the United States and our own laws, and not the laws of foreign countries, like some people want to do and you say there is "no checks and balances?.......

The legislature isn't upholding its obligations very well if it thinks it can issue statements that try to tell the judiciary how to do its job. One branch telling another how it believes the other is supposed to function has no place in the concept of checks and balances- the roles are clearly defined in the constitution, and as already stated, the constitution explictly endorses an independent judiciary. When one branch tells the other how to function, it's called strongarming, not checks and balances... checks and balances are there precisely so that one branch can't do these things.

Also, when the Constitution was signed, and for some time afterwards, we were using, for the most part, British law! It wasn't until we had a bulk of precedent already in place that we could have what could be claimed to be a truly American body of common law. But even so, we refer back to British interpretations, which are binding where nothing else is on point (as I've mentioned before.) It's more or less the same in every other common law country. So to equate the founding fathers' desire that American courts "uphold our own laws" with outright rejection of foreign law is absurd given the context. Foreign law is not just important but even vital to US law in this regard.

koji, perhaps you are an stranger to the Constitution, but the forefathers made sure that all the world understood that the law of the land from that day when the forefathers signed the independence of the United States forward that all interpretations of the law had to be done in accordance to our Constitution, that of the United States government and not the Constitution and the decisions reached by international courts.

[edit on 18-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Sure, but they can't just look at the Constitution, can they? I mean that's pretty silly, because the Constitution is only one relatively short document. Of course, it's the supreme law of the land, along with international treaties, but in reaching a legal decision, surely anyone would have to refer to, maybe, their outside learning? Conceptions of societal standards, common sense, history, politics, science, etc, etc?

Informed decisions are made by looking at a wide range of sources. This is fact.

Honestly, what I find funny, is that if you look at the very same Congressmen's research staff briefs when they draft statutes, I'm pretty sure you'd have a hard time finding any research interns who wouldn't examine sources with the same degree of freedom our courts are granted (that is, they'd look to see what works and what doesn't work elsewhere as well as here). That's because this is necessary in making intelligent decisions!

I mean come on, how many times have I seen politicans- of every type, say something like, "They tried that in Europe! It didn't work!," or "Look at how well it works in Country X,"?

I can only repeat everything else I've said in my last few posts- I'll say again here because I firmly believe it, that many of the founding fathers were realists and practioners or students of law, and they knew the role of foreign law in national law, and would be shocked to see how this accepted principle is being twisted and misrepresented by politicians today for political gain.

[edit on 19-3-2006 by koji_K]