Who’s On First . . . What’s On Second
By William Bailey (05/11/03)
Most will recognize the title of this article as being from an old Abbott & Costello comedy routine about baseball. However, my use of it is of a, considerably, more serious nature. Let me explain . . .
I grew up and was taught in school (and believe to this day) that all three branches of the Federal government have both a “custodial” and a “protector” obligation to the Constitution of the United States. Of the three branches, I have always believed that the ultimate “custodian” and “protector” of the Constitution was the Supreme Court of the United States. It would appear that when it comes to protecting the Constitution, it’s difficult to tell exactly, “who’s on first . . . what’s on second.”
Now we have a Justice of the Supreme Court making speeches that would seem to indicate that one or more members of the Court have “bought into” the concept being fostered and promoted by the United Nations of “Global Governance”. Let’s get one thing out of the way right up front . . . for the United States to be a party to this “Global Governance” nonsense means, quite simply, that we will forfeit the last vestige of sovereignty that still remains. We can be a citizen of the world without being governed by it.
Justice O’Connor has publicly stated (for the second time now) that “American courts need to pay more attention to international legal decisions to help create a more favorable impression abroad.” She went on to say, “I suspect that over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues.” (As reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution).
Appearing on the ABC News’ “This Week”, Justice Stephen Breyer seemed to echo a similar position when he said, “We see all the time, Justice O’Connor and I, and the others, how the world really—it’s trite but it’s true---is growing together.” “Through commerce, through globalization, through the spread of democratic institutions, through immigration to America, it’s becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people. And how they’re going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think will be a challenge for the next generations.”
Maybe it’s time for some of the members of the Supreme Court to take a minute and go read Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the document which established the Court. Here’s what it says:
“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;”
There is nothing in the Constitution that makes even a slight reference to consideration of the laws of foreign countries (outside of Treaties) when making a decision that is, or will be, applicable in the United States of America. And, quite frankly, Mr. Justice Breyer, I don’t really care how the Constitution of the United States “fits into the governing documents of other nations”. The Founders did not design the Constitution to be the governing document of other nations. Their concern and direction was in formulating and founding this Republic. And, that’s what they did.
For many, many years, this form of government and this Constitution has been held out as an example to the rest of the world as being the beacon of freedom and liberty. Now, it seems that our own Supreme Court wants to contravene the very document that established it by bringing foreign law into their consideration of domestic issues. Again, Justice O’Connor said as much in her speech in Atlanta, “ . . . . that over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues.” Would not appear to be to difficult to understand what she’s saying. One cannot help but wonder how many of the other justices hold the same opinion.
As has been referenced in an earlier article, Thomas Jefferson, writing to Thomas Ritchie in 1802, said:
“The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our Constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone.” (Emphasis added).
Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist 81 stated:
“In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which DIRECTLY empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every state. I admit, however, that the Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution.” (Emphasis added).
Neither Mr. Hamilton nor Mr. Jefferson make any reference to inclusion or consideration of foreign law as the Court goes about its responsibilities.
Quite frankly, I am proud of the Constitution of the United States. It is a marvel of government. It’s very, very sad that we have forces from within and without trying to subvert and contravene the provisions of that majestic and magnificent document.
I repeat, we can be citizens of the world without being governed by it.
(Printer friendly version) Email: William Bailey
