Additional Titles

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

Other
Ryter
Articles:

The Two Kerry's:
War Hero or
Traitor?

"Men in Black" The Cult of The Judges

 

 

 

GINSBURG FAVORS INTERNATIONAL LAWS FOR U.S.
PART 1 of 2

 

 

 

By Jon Christian Ryter

April 19, 2006

NewsWithViews.com

When Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered a speech to the South African Constitutional Court on Feb. 7, 2006, she spoke of the need for national courts to incorporate international law—or as she put it, foreign decisional law—in the measures being debated by those courts. Ginsburg, who indicated that international law was acquiring a real position in the decision-making process of the US Supreme Court in 2004, noted that the Republican-controlled Congress would terminate all debate over whether or not the federal judiciary could, or should, refer to foreign or international legal materials when considering the cases before them. "For the most part," Ginsburg told the audience of South African judges, "they would respond to the question with a resounding 'No!' Two identical resolutions," she continued, "were reintroduced last year—one in the House of Representatives and the other in the Senate.

[They] declared that 'judicial interpretations regarding the meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based on judgments, laws or pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such [material] informs an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution.' As of December, 2005, the House Resolution had attracted support from 83 cosponsors. Two 2005-proposed Acts would do more than 'resolve,'" she added. "They would positively prohibit federal courts, when interpreting the Constitution, from referring to any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive Order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency—other than English constitutional or common law up to the time of the adoption of the US Constitution."

Ginsburg told her South African audience that while she doubted that the proposed resolutions would ever pass through Congress and actually be signed into law, she was disturbed about two things. First, it troubled her that the legislation attracted as many cosponsors in the House and Senate that it did since it was her opinion that the resolutions were fueled by a fringe element on the far right and not by mainstream-thinking legislators. Second, she was disquieted that Congress would willingly impose their will on the federal judiciary by limiting the materials the courts could refer to in contemplating their decisions. What convinced her that the legislation was "fueled" by the fringe element of the far right was a dialogue on a rightwing militant blog suggested that both Ginsburg and now retired Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor were being targeted by rightwing extremists. The Supreme Court Marshall alerted O'Connor on Feb. 28, 2005 of a web posting that threatened their lives because of public statements that O'Connor and Ginsburg intended to incorporate European court decisions, and decisions by the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice (the World Court), into their rulings.

In point of fact, while Ginsburg and O'Connor may have been more transparent on their belief than Associate Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer, all of them ascribe to the globalist views of the International Law Institute and the International Judiciary Academy. The utopian view is that it is imperative to very subtly weave the tenets of international law into the domestic courts of the nations in order to strengthen the administration of justice.

On the web blog posting theoretically shown to Justice O'Connor by the Supreme Court Marshall, Ginsburg told the South Africans that a blogger said: "Okay, commandoes, here is your first patriotic assignment...an easy one. Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and O'Connor have publicly stated that they use [foreign] laws and rulings to decide how to rule on American cases. This is a huge threat to our Republican and Constitutional freedom...If you are what you say you are, and not armchair patriots, then those two justices will not live another week." Not that I'm calling the jurist a liar but logic, on the face of it, suggests that story did not happen. Why? Because if rightwing bloggers had threatened the lives of the only two female members of the US Supreme Court—particularly two members who had signed on to the utopian agenda of melding international law into domestic law—the story would have headlined the news for days—all over the world. Arrrests would have been made and the trials of the extremists would have headlined the evening news for even more months.

In reality, what the international judicial NGOs (non-governmental organizations) are attempting is to domesticate international law. This would allow transnational legal rulings to infiltrate American jurisprudence through both civil and criminal codes and acquire legal standing as lawful precedents in American courts—at every level of the judicial hierarchy. This would serve to bind American judges not only to laws—and the legal logic—enacted by the European Union in the Hague, but those enacted by the governments in Beijing, Moscow, Havana—and Tehran. Why would Ginsburg—and Stevens, and Souter, and Breyer—willingly pollute American law by incorporating foreign judgments, administrative rules, or white papers by NGOs into the legal logic of their adjudication?

Ginsburg summarized her views by telling the South Africans that utilizing international "natural" law in the United States is necessary because the US Constitution is "...a document frozen in time as of the date of its ratification," adding that she was "...not a partisan of that view. US jurists honor the Framers' intent to create a more perfect Union. I believe," she added, "if they read the Constitution as belonging to a global 21st century, not fixed forever by 18th century understandings of European and African liberals to unilaterally amend a Constitution written by benighted 18th century Americans as such Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and James Madison." In her final explanation, Ginsburg clearly reveals she is partisan of the view that the Constitution must evolve to survive.

And that, pretty much, has been the crux of the battle between conservative White Houses and the liberals on the US Senate Judiciary Committee since the Warren Court in 1954—denying a berth on the federal bench to any rule of law jurist and confirming only those judges who would apply the precepts of social justice to case law that would necessarily weaken, if not destroy, the Bill of Rights, as the Utopians within government and the wealthy barons of banking and industry prepared America for its admission into the global hierarchy of the New World Order.

In his 1990 book, "The Tempting of America," former US District Court Judge and foiled Reagan Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork noted that:

"[t]he central problem for constitutional courts is the resolution of the 'Madisonian dilemma'...The dilemma is that neither majorities or minorities can be trusted to define the proper spheres of democratic authority and individual liberty. To place that power in or the other would risk either tyranny by the majority or tyranny by the minority. The Constitution deals with the problem in three ways: by limiting the powers of the federal government; by arranging that the President, the senators and the representatives would be elected by different constituencies voting at different times, and by providing a Bill of Rights. The last is the only solution that directly addresses the specific liberties minorities are to have."

The Bill of Rights, the instrument used to protect liberty became the problem of the utopians who wanted to redefine that liberty based on the needs of an evolving global—not national—society.

The liberals "problem" with the Bill of Rights is not that it s "frozen in time" as suggested by Ginsburg, and thus, needs to be "thawed" by the temperate mood of an evolving civilization at the gateway of Utopia in the 21st century. The Bill of Rights is completely neutral in its immunity and thus, it's ageless. It protects society by protecting all of the people from the conniving underhandedness of government as it protects the nation from the prejudices of the majority against the minority—and the racial, religious, ethnic and cultural prejudices of the minority against the majority. It is the most equal thing in our unequal world. The wisdom of the Founding Fathers exceeds the combined intellect of all of the Nobel laureates, junk yard lawyers and constitutional scholars combined.

The Bill of Rights was the structured authority that prevented Woodrow Wilson from legislatively abolishing national sovereignty to the utopian barons of industry and banking who desired a world government without trade borders or tariffs in 1920. It did its job again just prior to the outbreak of World War II when Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill met on battleships in Placenta Bay off the coast of Newfoundland on Aug. 109, 1941. The White House press corps called the agreement they signed the Atlantic Charter. In reality it was nothing more than the surreptitious reclothing of the failed European League of Nations in a neatly tailored red, white and blue, star-spangled Uncle Sam-camouflagued version of the same utopian organization that was actually created by the robber barons and bankers who wanted a borderless, tariff-free Europe in 1920. The remodeled—but virtually unchanged—version was called the United Nations. Roosevelt and the utopians had duped the American people. The world government-in-waiting had simply been made to look American.

The utopians who attempted to create world government at the end of World War I were quick to grasp the simple reality that the nationalistic fervor that fuels patriotism is rooted in faithÑChristian faith. It became very clear to the one-worlders between the two world wars that, before American sovereignty could be breached and the United States re-shackled to the Old World Order the utopians, the Bill of Rights—which Ginsburg claimed was frozen in time—would have to be abolished and replaced with the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!


Enter Your E-Mail Address:

When then Executive Vice President (now CEO) of the National Rifle Association [NRA] Wayne LaPierre debated Rebecca Peters, the head of the International Action Network of Small Arms [IANSA] at Kings College in London in 2004 on the issue of gun control, she advocated killing the Bill of Rights to eliminate the 2nd Amendment. In her own words, Peters told the audience of largely anti-gun advocates she believed the American Bill of Rights should be abolished and replaced with the UN Declaration of Human Rights, adding that she didn't believe Americans should have rights that no other people in the world possess. Peters was much more circumspect about the ageless character of the Bill of Rights than Associate US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who referred to the same Bill of Rights as an archaic relic that was "frozen in time." For part 2 click below.

Click here for part -----> 2

© 2006 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights Reserved

[Read Jon Ryter's book "Whatever Happened to America?"]

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale



Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban markets in the United States.

Today, Jon is an advertising executive with the Washington Times. His website, www.jonchristianryter.com has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on his website.

E-Mail: BAFFauthor@aol.com


Home

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


Ginsburg summarized her views by telling the South Africans that utilizing international "natural" law in the United States is necessary because the US Constitution is "...a document frozen in time...