Which of these mostly fits your view of how the judicial system should be?see article

Which of these mostly fits your view of how the judicial system should be?(see article)Transnationalism or nationalism.


Frank Gaffney : Lawfare and Obama's Transnationalist - Townhall.com
Generally speaking, the transnationalists tend to emphasize the interdependence between the United States and the rest of the world, while the nationalists tend instead to focus more on preserving American autonomy. The transnationalists believe in and promote the blending of international and domestic law; while nationalists continue to maintain a rigid separation of domestic from foreign law. The transnationalists view domestic courts as having a critical role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law, while nationalists argue instead that only the political branches can internalize international law.

The transnationalists believe that U.S. courts can and should use their interpretive powers to promote the development of a global legal system, while the nationalists tend to claim that U.S. courts should limit their attention to the development of a national system. Finally, the transnationalists urge that the power of the executive branch should be constrained by judicial review and the concept of international comity, while the nationalists tend to believe that federal courts should give extraordinarily broad deference to executive power in foreign affairs.

Re: Which of these mostly fits your view of how the judicial system should be?see art

This just fearmongering. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and nothing will change that short of revolution or amendment. The various policy choices discussed are policy choices, not giving international courts power over our own. Gitmo was closed because it violated American law, not international law, and the wiretapping was closed for the same reason. Kerrys plan to get U.N. authorization before invading other country is just foreign policy. The only things mentioned that are legally binding are the treaties, and treaties are explicitly allowed in the constitution. There is no substance to the articles claims.

Re: Which of these mostly fits your view of how the judicial system should be?see art

The Constitution of the United States is the foundation of all law for the United States. World opinion may be stimulating to hear and discuss, but it only can mold US law when world opinion is blended into the Constitution via the process of amendments.

Otherwise, world opinion has no legal standing so far as American courts are concerned. The Constitution is the only framework applicable to our courts.

Re: Which of these mostly fits your view of how the judicial system should be?see art

jamesrage said:

Which of these mostly fits your view of how the judicial system should be?(see article)Transnationalism or nationalism.


Frank Gaffney : Lawfare and Obama's Transnationalist - Townhall.com
Generally speaking, the transnationalists tend to emphasize the interdependence between the United States and the rest of the world, while the nationalists tend instead to focus more on preserving American autonomy. The transnationalists believe in and promote the blending of international and domestic law; while nationalists continue to maintain a rigid separation of domestic from foreign law. The transnationalists view domestic courts as having a critical role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law, while nationalists argue instead that only the political branches can internalize international law.

The transnationalists believe that U.S. courts can and should use their interpretive powers to promote the development of a global legal system, while the nationalists tend to claim that U.S. courts should limit their attention to the development of a national system. Finally, the transnationalists urge that the power of the executive branch should be constrained by judicial review and the concept of international comity, while the nationalists tend to believe that federal courts should give extraordinarily broad deference to executive power in foreign affairs.

Click to expand...

You can't stick your head in the sand and pretend globalization hasn't happened and that we're not all interlinked now. It would be wrong to be either/or. It's pertinent to both protect America's interests while realizing the practicality of some international law and cooperation.

Re: Which of these mostly fits your view of how the judicial system should be?see art

rathi said:

This just fearmongering. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and nothing will change that short of revolution or amendment. The various policy choices discussed are policy choices, not giving international courts power over our own. Gitmo was closed because it violated American law, not international law, and the wiretapping was closed for the same reason. Kerrys plan to get U.N. authorization before invading other country is just foreign policy. The only things mentioned that are legally binding are the treaties, and treaties are explicitly allowed in the constitution. There is no substance to the articles claims.

Click to expand...

Supreme court judges have cited foreign law why would this be fear mongering?
USATODAY.com - Supreme Court citing more foreign cases
Citing Foreign Law - The Washington Post | Encyclopedia.com
Citing foreign and international law to interpret the constitution: what's the point? | Albany Law Review | Find Articles at BNET
SSRN-The Supreme Court and Foreign Sources of Law: Two Hundred Years of Practice and the Juvenile Death Penalty Decision by Steven Calabresi, Stephanie Dotson Zimdahl

Re: Which of these mostly fits your view of how the judicial system should be?see art

talloulou said:

You can't stick your head in the sand and pretend globalization hasn't happened and that we're not all interlinked now. It would be wrong to be either/or. It's pertinent to both protect America's interests while realizing the practicality of some international law and cooperation.

Click to expand...

Only a piece of **** would sell his or her country out to globalism and pretend that selling your country's sovereignty down the toilet is beneficial to our country. Foreign laws have no place in our country period. If a judge wants to cite another nation's law then that judge needs to go and work as a judge in another country.

Re: Which of these mostly fits your view of how the judicial system should be?see art

jamesrage said:

Only a piece of **** would sell his or her country out to globalism and pretend that selling your country's sovereignty down the toilet is beneficial to our country. Foreign laws have no place in our country period. If a judge wants to cite another nation's law then that judge needs to go and work as a judge in another country.

Click to expand...

Well context is everything. I don't agree with citing another nations laws. However I don't take issue with respecting certain international laws and am not opposed to global laws in some contexts.

Re: Which of these mostly fits your view of how the judicial system should be?see art

jamesrage said:

Supreme court judges have cited foreign law why would this be fear mongering?
USATODAY.com - Supreme Court citing more foreign cases
Citing Foreign Law - The Washington Post | Encyclopedia.com
Citing foreign and international law to interpret the constitution: what's the point? | Albany Law Review | Find Articles at BNET
SSRN-The Supreme Court and Foreign Sources of Law: Two Hundred Years of Practice and the Juvenile Death Penalty Decision by Steven Calabresi, Stephanie Dotson Zimdahl

Click to expand...

Do you see why there's a difference between citing the laws of a foreign country and following the laws of a foreign country?

If I'm writing a brief in the 2nd Circuit, I might cite to some cases from Hawaii or Texas. I'm not doing so because I'm saying that those cases should be followed here, but am merely to explain a point or note what some other places have done in order to provide fuller context.

Tempest in a teapot, as pointed out above.

Re: Which of these mostly fits your view of how the judicial system should be?see art

It depends on the context in which you are referring to the judicial system.

Are you referring to an American stealing another American's car, and staying in America? Or are you talking about an American corporation polluting a river that flows into Canada?

Are you referring to an American killing another American, and staying in America? Or are you talking about the US Congress displaying an anti-competitive favoritism to American casinos by banning online poker sites based in Antigua?

Are you referring to an American bilking other American investors in a Ponzi scheme, and staying in America? Or are you talking about Somalis committing acts of piracy against American ships on the high seas?

In some cases domestic law works better. In other cases international law works better. :roll: