Citing unapproved treaty is 'act of most fundamental reordering of legal system'
The fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution possibly have been shoved one step closer to irrelevance by the U.S. Supreme Court, which yesterday cited as support for its opinion an international treaty that has not been adopted in the U.S.
The issue is raising alarms for those who have been fighting the trend toward adopting "international" standards for American jurisprudence rather than relying on a strict application of the Constitution.
"It is bad enough for the Supreme Court to engage in judicial activism," said Michael Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association. "It is far worse when the justices employ international law in support of their far-reaching edicts.
Don't underestimate the globalists. "The Beast on the East River" presents a frightening exposé of the United Nations' global power grab and its ruthless attempt to control U.S. education, law, gun ownership, taxation, and reproductive rights.
GO HERE to read more.
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
So, I guess the citation of English common law as the basis of much of our current legal precedents means that it's really the British that operate our shadow government?
ReplyDeleteHogwash.
Or the citation of "natural rights?" Because those apply to all humans, in theory, even (gasp) international ones! Michael Farris is a total extremist who has a very narrow view of the Constitution. In fact, he thinks the Bible should drive our laws. Oops! That would be another "international" document!
ReplyDeleteOh please, our Supreme Court is to the right of Dick Cheney.
ReplyDelete8:29 and :57, why try? Theses dummies will jump on anything that government does as being evil until they get a republican in office. Then government can do no wrong.
ReplyDeleteSounds like the "Schooner Peggy" case all over again, right, GA?
ReplyDeleteWhere's John Marshall when we really need him?
I would agree with 8:57, until they start using citations from international sources to justify rulings other then those on human rights I would not be worried. In this case they used a Treaty that prohibits minors being jailed for life for something they did as a minor. I dont see anything wrong with that.
ReplyDeletePeople always try and make the slippery slope argument but you cant play that card in every legal case. For example, a ban on owning a 50Cal machine gun and a rocket launcher is not a slippery slope to a ban on all hand guns, the law does not work in this way. Just like using an international human rights treaty to justify something does not mean that next time we are going to use a law banning bibles that was based in say Iran.
By the way the U.S and Somalia were the only two nations not to ratify this treaty.
Zionism is world government run by an elite group of people who's blood line entitles them to exist as members of the Ruling Class.
ReplyDeleteZionism is communism. It is facism. It is Israel. It is the United States of Amerika.
Wake up folks
And yet the court is supposed to have more conservatives than liberals?
ReplyDeleteHey 9:53...care to explain how you can be both communist and fascist at the same time? That would be a neat trick.
ReplyDelete