The Long Arm of the Law

Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution requires "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...." A breach of the oath has consequences. Futhermore, neither the courts nor juries have the right, much less the jurisdiction, to exceed the rights conferred upon them by the Constitution, disobey valid enactments, substitute their opinion in place of them, or engage in what has been termed "nullification." See, e.g., U.S. v. Callender, 25 F.Cas. 239, 254 (C.C.Va. 1800); Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726 (1972).

It's easy to debate what you think is right, it's entirely another to suggest that one can dispense with a system of dispensing justice approved and developed over two centruries for a vast and complex society. Be careful what you wish for, because anarchy, once loosed, leads to unpredictable destinations that usually involve dictators.

If US has ratified an international law, that law becames BOTH national and international and all the talk about "constitutionality" is just absurd. It is just another US law like any other US law. It makes no more sense that to say that punishing murderers is "unconstitutional" because other nation are doing that too.

This is really all about treaties. If the US signed and ratified a treaty, then we are bound to follow it unless we are willing to risk breaking that treaty.
Also, "english jurisprudence" is a whole legacy of legal judgements by a foriegn court that we generalyl tend to follow.
It just happens now that the Republican were caught with thier pants down and their whips unfurled. It is all reminiscent of the film noir dramas where someone like Peter Lorrie says "We have ways of making you talk".
This article makes Newsweek an apoligist for torture. But, at least they are not an advocate for turture like the FOX and the other minions of Murdock's empire.

An interesting article, but without any legal significance (I hope). Our government is tasked with protecting its citizens (we are talking theoretical here, of course) The Supreme Court is part of the government, hence application of legal precepts not embodied in and protected by our Constitution and/or firmly supported by case law would not be considered by the Court...UNLESS, of course, the Congress and the President colluded to nominate a majority to the Court that would support such a shift and also turn a blind eye to any laws passed that eroded our protections. This is NOT going to happen.

Laws support societies in many ways. Our constitution recognizes that the power to enact and enforce the law comes from citizens and those they appoint. The courts play an important, but limited, role under the Constitution because they lack the power to legislate. If one is dissatisfied with an existing rule of law, then Americans should utilize the proper mechanism to change it.

All too often, when one becomes impatient with the process or a particular result, the age-old ends-justifies-the-means rationale rears it head to excuse getting one's way. This is anarchy and procedure - doing something the right way - is often the first casualty. A society cannot have a fair body of laws unless they are fairly developed and applied, and personal exceptions are antithetical to justice.

Imagine how difficult it would be to conduct your affairs if you did not know what law governed your conduct. After all, if a judge is free to pick and choose which foreign law to apply and when without any direction as to which they must choose (and with the understanding that they need not apply the laws of the United States), it would be impossible to know what our society considers right and wrong. What if a Muslim judge decided to apply Islamic law or a Christian judge chose to enforce Biblical teachings that disagreed with American jurisprudence?

To declare these viewpoints valid is to state that no law is binding except that which is expedient to the decisionmaker. While everyone has an opinion, this arrogant philosophy invites judges who think that they know what is best for everyone else to force their views upon litigants, who naively hope for predictable, fair treatment. The result will not only be illegal, but will lead to chaos.

Very much agree with <quote>we must take the side of our sovereignty, and respectfully disagree with the international community</quote> If we are to contribute to the humanistic values of the world community, we ought to export our Constitutional Values. They are humanistic in nature and have nothing to do with any religion.

Koh has campaigned to expand some rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution???and perhaps shrink some others, including the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech???to better conform to the laws of other nations.

While Koh is very much enjoying the goodies the Constitution and this country has given him, his attempt to use the word "evolve" to make changes in our system to accommodate the less evolved countries on this planet isn't too bright an idea. Koh ought to export the our Constitution instead of import the values of lesser evolved countries.

Very much agree with "we must take the side of our sovereignty, and respectfully disagree with the international community". If anything, we ought to export our Constitutional values which are humanistic in nature and not related to any religion.

The EU is by no means an example of Freedom, just ask its natives how they feel trapped by the UN and EU rules and regulations which trims its Freedom in many areas.

Europe is by no means an example enjoying Freedom of Expression. Its undercurrent is very much Control of Freedom of Speech.

QUote of Koh:
" In his writings, Koh has campaigned to expand some rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution???and perhaps shrink some others, including the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech???to better conform to the laws of other nations."

Yet, isn't he enjoying to the fullest the First Amendment, thereby using the word "evolve" to change the values within the Constitution? If Koh is a "reasonable" mind as is claimed, why would he want to shrink the First Amendment? A contradiction for a man who enjoys very much all the the USA has offered him. I would expect of Koh, he introduces the values of the Constitution on other nations who have less evolved into the Humanistic values of Freedom of Speech.

The rest of the world has less evolved into Freedom and Europe is no example to be proud of. Its underlying current is very much control of Freedom of Speech.

I think Mr. Koh has a valid point--to a certain extent. The United States ought to consider the international norms on legal issues, particularly those that involve our relationships with other countries. Common practice is, after all, one of the major components of international law. However, we can and must balance the demands of international practice with our responsibility as a sovereign nation to craft our own legal policies. Unless our legal practice constitutes a clear violation of international law, human rights, or responsible behavior, I firmly believe that we must take the side of our sovereignty, and respectfully disagree with the international community--or at least the EU.

Nothing should ever usurp the strict interpretation of our own Constitution regarding law. It is absolute insanity and shows why it is bad policy to let attorneys make policy.

Thomas & Taylor's inadequate framing, with limited discussion of questions of sovereignty and democracy, feeds into the conservative hysteria which is the basis for the ratings of FOX News programming, and which has the effect of poisoning the public forum. Their notion of the "logical extreme" is invalid and devoid of any reasoned attempt to understand the finding of law.

The law is neither found nor contained within a void. What happens in other nations, especially advanced industrialized democracies, and what happens internationally necessarily affects the development and exercise of legal precepts within individual nations which are not disconnected from international social and commercial exchange. It is inconsistent and absurd to support international legal standards for purposes of business and commerce while condemning such standards when applied to questions of human rights.

Simply put, treaties approved by the U.S. Senate have the force of U.S. constitutional and federal law and bind the U.S. into systems and subsystems of international law. However, the U.S. Congress remains supreme and Congress might at any time legislate any change for U.S. application. So the hand wringing about the loss of sovereignty is a bit of a dodge.

Although, over the past 50 years there have been fewer treaties submitted to the Senate by U.S. presidents and many more executive agreements concluded. Through mechanisms such as executive agreements and executive orders U.S. presidents work their will without the "advice and consent" of the U.S. Senate. The lack of Senate approval of such agreements which possess the scope of erstwhile treaties--the democracy component--is indeed much more problematic and little discussed.

Thomas & Taylor's inadequate framing, with limited discussion of questions of sovereignty and democracy, feeds into the conservative hysteria which is the basis for the ratings of FOX News programming, and which has the effect of poisoning the public forum. Their notion of the "logical extreme" is invalid and devoid of any reasoned attempt to understand the finding of law.

The law is neither found nor contained within a void. What happens in other nations, especially advanced industrialized democracies, and what happens internationally necessarily affects the development and exercise of legal precepts within individual nations which are not disconnected from international social and commercial exchange. It is inconsistent and absurd to support international legal standards for purposes of business and commerce while condemning such standards when applied to questions of human rights.

Simply put, treaties approved by the U.S. Senate have the force of U.S. constitutional and federal law and bind the U.S. into systems and subsystems of international law. However, the U.S. Congress remains supreme and Congress might at any time legislate any change for U.S. application. So the hand wringing about the loss of sovereignty is a bit of a dodge.

Although, over the past 50 years there have been fewer treaties submitted to the Senate by U.S. presidents and many more executive agreements concluded. Through mechanisms such as executive agreements and executive orders U.S. presidents work their will without the "advice and consent" of the U.S. Senate. The lack of Senate approval of such agreements which possess the scope of erstwhile treaties--the democracy component--is indeed much more problematic and little discussed.

In the long view, our laws come from our belief in a

Wow this is one of the worst articles I have ever read. Why would Koh or anyone who supports women's rights ever possibly consider Islamic law? Taylor and Thomas, you two are douche bags.

The question this article asked was "do foreign judges have a role in U.S. courts". NO NO NO Why did we form a country in the first place. This is our country with our laws that we passed. Who is in charge of international law and international courts? Can we change those if we dont like them....NO NO NO.....dumb dumb dumb

The Founding Fathers were members of the Enlightenment who believed ideas are considered on their merits regardless of nationality. The American Revolution was fought over denial of the rights of the English common law and the separation of powers was from the writings of a Frenchman, Montiesquieu. Freedom of speech, the press, search and seizure, and protection of intimate relationships from governmental excess are universal problems. Why are conservatives so afraid of consideration of foreign nation's experience with human rights? America does not have all the answers.