-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
President Obama Nominates Harold Koh for State Department Legal Advisor
- Thread starter Random8145
- Start date
FormerRecruitingGuru
Making Recruiting Great Again
At least he's paid his taxes.
Lonestar155
is good to go
Are you going to provide any thoughts or just post links?
The Administration says he is a strong defender of the Constitution, yet he argues for the inclusion of international law and precedent when deciding domestic cases on appeal before the US Court of Appeals and US Supreme Court? I see it as an either or position.
Where did you get that?
Some say he's a trans-nationalist, others say that's just tinfoil-hat fears, so I don't know what to think; I figured I'd post the link and get opinions.
Read it while doing serious FLASH style research the other day. What, you don't believe it? Justice Bryer espouses that philosophy. As it suits them so do Justice Ginsburg and Justice Souter. I happen to think it is total BULL SHIT and the road to the ruin of this great country. But, it ain't so out of line for so called legal scholars. It isn't like I have called him a supporter of man boy love or something. I don't have your recall though so I will have to try to find my source again. You can stand down from the FOX NEWS Right Wing wacko watch though. It was fairly main stream. I say "fairly" because what passes for main stream now just doesn't hack it. No digging, no research. Not if it doesn't fit their template anyway. Most just parrot what the talking heads and official spokesmen say. The DEM comment and the GOP response. Gosh I am tired of that.
How about sharing it with the rest of us?
The reason I ask is because while he seems to be a supporter of international law, including the ICC, I haven't seen anything where he thinks international law is 'dominant' over US law. And just so you know, the US takes into account international law and precedents in some cases already, taking from treaties and agreements we have signed.
Simma downnow. Like I said, if I find it I will. I don't bookmark every morsel I find interesting. Busy day today. I'll see what I can find.
I didn't say he found it "dominant" over US Law. He has said that international law should be considered. By that he means foreign country's laws, not international treaty. Of course international law is considered in cases of treaties, etc. That is proper. In fact, unlike much of what the Supreme Court does today, that was an enumerated and specific responsibly of the Supreme Court from day one. But bringing international law or foreign laws into domestic cases by the US Supreme Court is, I believe, heresy. The Supreme Court is to decided the Constitutionality of US laws. That would be the U.S. Constitution for those with a score card.
I can't find the page I stumbled on before. I found lots of references to Mr. Koh's views on international law, the transnational legal process, and foreign law's consideration in domestic cases. Anyone can find the serious ones after digging through the blogs and opinion pieces that have popped up lately. It is tough to get to the source documents with just a green belt in google-fu. Most references are lectures, and books that are not readily on the web. Mr Koh was the lead on an amicus brief in Lawrence v Texas where he argued foreign law should be considered in a state sodomy case.
http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4517.htm
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2003/07/01/lawrence-v-texas
If you want to read the actual brief, knock yourself out. I think those two sources would not mis-represent Mr. Koh.
Besides a 55 min video I could not stand to watch past 6 minutes, the only thing in his words I can find is this paper where he describes the transnational law process as where the distinctions between U.S. and international law disappear. http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Alumni_Affairs/Koh_Why_Transnational_Law_Matters.pdf
Many people are all for that. Obviously, most, if not all, are on the opposite side of the aisle from me. It is clearly not a crack pot philosophy, just very wrong, in my opinion. My problem is figuring out which foreign or international laws should be referenced. Should we consider UK libel laws when a celebutard sues the National Inquirer, or French law? Should the court consider Thai laws or Spanish laws when deciding the constitutionality of drug violation sentencing. I don't live in Spain, or Singapore. I have helped shape our laws by participating in the process. I elect legislators, serve on juries, and voice my opinion on our society's laws to anyone who will listen. Where is the basis for a Frenchman having anything to say about the laws or norms in my country. He doesn't particpate in my government. He has nothing at stake. I would love to see the lawyer that argues in The Netherlands that based on US law Dutch narcotics laws are too permissible. Can you see a French judge even giving a respectful nod to any mention of US law in a French courtroom? It ain't a two way street. Transnationalism in our courts is just another surrender of sovereignty for which we get nothing in return. The U.S. Constitution is the one and only source document in our courts. Once you stray from the word of the Constitution you can find yourself anywhere. A judge's authority does not come from the people, American or Japanese. It comes from the Constitution.