The Long Arm of the Law

There is a disturbing undercurrent in many of these posts to the effect that because a politician from another party allegedly broke a law while in office, that their successor from another party is entitled to do the same. This is not the law anywhere, because it is premised upon the assumption that the law does not apply to prevent those in power from doing what they want, as is the case along the Somali coast.

The People of the United States established the Constitution, U.S. Const., Preamble, intending that the "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Gettysburg Address. If you are a Democrat or Republican, fine, that is your right. Just remember that the Constitution is for every citizen and protects one person's Constitutional rights from being infringed by everyone else. The Constitution is a wonder, not just because it defines what is "right" so brilliantly, but because it also requires that the laws must be fairly enacted, enforced and protected (Due Process, Equal Protection).

I hope that Citizens continue to have the courage to defend the essence of what America is against the unrelenting assaults of the ends-justifies-the-means anarchists.

Neither the President nor Congress can enter into any treaty that conflicts with the United States Constitution. The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. 616, 20 L. Ed. 227 (1870); Seery v. U. S., 130 Ct. Cl. 481, 127 F. Supp. 601 (1955). The United States Supreme Court, as with any branch of government, derives its authority from the Constitution and may not change it. Citizens are the only group that can change it, through the process specified in the Constitution. It is frightening to think that so many are unaware of this or are all too willing to advocate circumventing the law when it pleases them.

No Bill of Rights in transnational law? Have you ever heard about the Declaration of Human Rights? It may not be as strict as some of the U.S. constitution.

But sure, let the corporations keep buying the kind of law they want.

decisions made by the united states supreme court should be based upon interpretation of the united states constitution & earlier precedents, not by what some quack imam in saudia arabia thinks.

OOPS! I thought the first message disappeared because I hadn't joined the forum. My bad!

"Transnational" law is a horrible idea. Most countries have nothing even approaching the Bill of Rights that our officials are so eager to feed into the shredder. Such protections would not exist under Koh's ideal of one-world goverbnebt. Consider how easy it is to get in trouble with the law here in the USA; if an official wants to get you then a new charge is fabricated and applied retroactively. In a one-world government there would be no Bill of Rights; even if there were it would be meaningless. We have the right to a jury of our peers but in a one-world government one's "peers" may be in Iran, Bangladesh or another country where Americans are not popular. That same "pool" of worthies would also supply the judge, prosecutor and -- if allowed -- the defense attorney. Can anyone say, "Kangaroo Court?"

Transnational law is a terrible idea. First, consider how easy it is to run afoul of the law; if an offical wants to get you he or she fabricates a new crime and applies it retroactively. Koh's ideas push us toward a one world government where the Bill of Rights becomes irrelevant. We have the right to a jury of our peers but in a transnational one world government one's "peers" could be in Iran, Bangladesh or another country where Americans are not popular. That same pool would supply the prosecutor and -- if allowed -- the defense attorney. Can anyone say, "Kangaroo Court?"

Is the expression "stupid is what stupid dose" or "stupid dose what stupid is"? I think it work both ways

Obama eroding our democracy? We'll www.democratsareajoke.com shows how bad of a joke he and the demorats are.

We slip ever closer to the Abyss, thanks to all toy morons who voted for Change!!

The Long Arm of the Law
A looming battle over the role foreign judges should play in U.S. courts.

Simple - NONE

The judicial branch is being used to circumvent representative government on all manner of issues inconvenient to elected liberals. Can't ratify a treaty through our elected representatives in congress? Find a judge who'll write a decision effectively making it law! Can't get elected officials onboard with gay marriage? Sue and let a judge make it a law for you! Can't get elected officials to pass your leftwing social agenda? No worries, a judge somewhere will be happy to! This philosophy takes all accountability out of the equation... our elected officials are tasked with these roles for a reason, and that reason is because if they ultimately do something their constituents don't approve of, they'll be removed, easily, from office. But now they don't have to actually make these decisions... they can just let the unelected judicial do their bidding for them, and let them continue to straddle the fence on the tough issues come election time. It is NOT what our founding fathers intended, and chips away at the very heart of what our representative democracy was intended to look like. Full-on shooting revolutions have been started over far less. And quite frankly, if this continues I don't see any other conclusion.

One does wonder how water boarding becomes "alleged torture"? If it isn't torture it should be legal within the US, right? In the charter that created the ICC, the US injected a paragraph (maybe several) saying that the ICC only can try war criminals that the member states won't try themselves. So no problem for the US then, right?

And if we think that Koh does NOT have an agenda of abdicating US law for a "world opinion" court of some sort then the authors are bigger fools than their previous work would suggest. Exaggerated? I think not. We've all seen this train coming for a long, long time now and we've already seen concesions made to this dangerous notion of "international" law...a law that at its most basic elements takes away the rights of our country to set its own standards and relies on cultures and belief systems wildly incongruent with our own to have "legitimacy" in our courts. No thanks. If we really want to see civil unrest and greater division in this country, keep pushing this notion.

Obama is not a closet socialist he came "out of the closet" on Jan 21, 2009.