Breyer has previously said that U.S. Courts can look to foreign law in reaching decisions, just don't cite it.
Maybe I missed something, but I have thought that those in government service, whether the military, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court take an oath to defend the Constitution. In fact, Federal judges take two oaths:
Oath 1:
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (office) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.
Oath 2:
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Strange. I see nothing in either of these oaths of consulting the laws of, say France, if the U.S. Constitution doesn't address the issue before the court. No, the oath's are clear. If the issue or law before the court is not specifically addressed in the U.S. Constitution, then the Supreme Court should strike it down as unconstitutional, or send it back to the Circuit Court if it falls under a states rights issue. The 10th Amendment is also clear on this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Stephen Breyer and his ilk are a danger to the liberty of the people of the United States. The federal government does NOT have the authority to compel individuals to purchase a specific good or service. And don't give me the argument about the "commerce clause" authorizing it. Statists have completely bastardized the original meaning of this clause with such asinine reasoning as "failure to engage in commerce is engaging in commerce", which was the argument made in the case of "Wickard vs. Filburn" in which the Court ruled that wheat that Filburn grew on his farm and fed to his cattle on his own property constituted "commerce", though the wheat never left his property, and thus didn't even fall under intrastate commerce, let alone interstate commerce. Breyer is in the camp of those who would delegate unlimited power of the federal government to regulate commerce.
Many have laughed at some of the Justices talking about forcing people to buy broccoli, cell phones and burial insurance during the hearings this week on ObamaCare, but the kind of rationale of Justice Breyer and many of his contemporaries have shown is no laughing matter.
It would give government unprecedented power over it's citizens, turning us into subjects, and mean the end of our country as we have known it.
Justice Breyer: Can Congress Make Americans Buy Computers, Cell Phones, Burials? ‘Yes, of Course’
By Terence P. Jeffrey March 28, 2012
(CNSNews.com) - During oral arguments in the Supreme Court this week, Justice Stephen Breyer posed and answered the core question at issue in the controversy over the constitutionality of Obamacare’s mandate that individual Americans must buy government-approved health insurance policies: Can Congress order individuals to buy a good or service?
“Yes, of course they could,” said Breyer.
In the history of the nation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government has never done this.
More at CNS News
No comments:
Post a Comment