U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia delivers a lecture on the clash between international and state law that is inherent in globalization. He explores historical precedents, and discusses the best and the worst ways of implementing international law.
Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice, was born in Trenton, New Jersey, March 11, 1936. He received his A.B. from Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, and his LL.B. from Harvard Law School, and was a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University from 1960-1961.
He was in private practice in Cleveland, Ohio from 1961-1967, a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia from 1967-1971, and a Professor of Law at the University of Chicago from 1977-1982, and a Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University and Stanford University.
He was chairman of the American Bar Association's Section of Administrative Law, 1981-1982, and its Conference of Section Chairmen, 1982-1983. He served the federal government as General Counsel of the Office of Telecommunications Policy from 1971-1972, Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States from 1972-1974, and Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel from 1974-1977.
He was appointed Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1982. President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat September 26, 1986.
Process by which the experience of everyday life, marked by the diffusion of commodities and ideas, is becoming standardized around the world. Factors that have contributed to globalization include increasingly sophisticated communications and transportation technologies and services, mass migration and the movement of peoples, a level of economic activity that has outgrown national markets through industrial combinations and commercial groupings that cross national frontiers, and international agreements that reduce the cost of doing business in foreign countries. Globalization offers huge potential profits to companies and nations but has been complicated by widely differing expectations, standards of living, cultures and values, and legal systems as well as unexpected global cause-and-effect linkages. See alsofree trade.
I admire much of the points ironed out by Justice Scalia - but there are some nuance issues that was not raised during the questioning - about the US behaving like the EU. For example, the US imposed its law on Manuel Antonio Noriega, the Head of State of a sovereign nation, Panama and brought him to 'justice'. The US invaded Grenada, with the aim of eradicating Marxist tendencies, etc. Overall though, the principle enshrined in the US constitution and the processes by which amemdmends can be made are sound and proper, as opposed to my observation that the EU is the most dangerous instrument of dictatorship ever designed.
The Constitution does not grant rights to any GROUP. The INDIVIDUAL is sovereign under our Constitution. The Constitution lays out the restrictions on the State in interfering with each individual's rights. Please tell me what right does a heterosexual citizen have that a homosexual citizen does not have in regard to marriage? You have stated that this is a civil issue and that the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction. Your comparison of the issue of homosexual marriage to marriage among citizens of different races or ethinic backgrounds holds no water.
Your arguement fails even under Equal Protection considerations. Do you really believe that the Founding Fathers believed homosexual marriage was a Fundamental, Constitutional Right? It is certainly not mentioned in the United States Constitution nor is it mentioned in The Federalist. Which article or Ammendment lists marriage as a "Fundamanetal Right," either explicitly or implicitly? What evidence do you have that the Founding Fathers believed homosexual marriage was a Fundamental, Constitutional Right? Which cases called marriage a fundamental right? Which decisions? What were the facts? Who were the litigants? If they did call marriage a "Fundamental Right," and by extension protected by the United States Constitution, did they define that right?" What did the justices mean when they used the word "marriage?" What specific behavior or activity constituted the "right" they claimed was "Fundamental?"
All of these questions matter. The United States Constitution is silent on marriage. In my opinion, Ammendment X keeps this decision in the states. Again, if we stipulate, as you boldly do, that this IS a legal issue, how are we to decide it? Who makes Laws? The Federal and most State Constitutions place the sole legislative power in the hands of a legislature, elected by the citizens. Legislatures govern by the consent of the governed. The State of California allows an initiative process, prescribed by Law, to allow the people to decide issues that our weak, unprincipled legislature, will not take on. I personally do not like the initiative process, but we must live with what the people have decided. Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot legally and the people decided. In fact, homosexual marriage has been put to the vote of the people in 31 states. The people voted not to cghange the definition of marriage in ALL 31 states. Please read the 100+ page decision of this single judge who over turned the will of the people of California. He makes some pretty bold statements. I urge you to read it.
It seems the left often sees democracy as an obstacle to the achievement of their agenda, since their arguements cannot win the day with the people, so they ask unelected, unaccountable judges to undemocratically dictate (I use that word deliberately, as it is the action of a Dictator) how the people must live, regardless of their beliefs and votes. Again, do not roll out the intellectually dishonest and weak straw man that this is the same question as the civil rights of racial minorities.
The real question is, how does a free people settle issues? If a Federal judge declares something to be a Constitutionally protected Fundamental Right, should he provide textual support for this position? Legal, cultural or intellectual examples of this being the case? A reliance on the traditions of the people? Precedent? This decision again comes down to this - the Judge dictated that homosexual marriage is a Fundamental right and his only justification is that HE THINKS it is a Fundamental right. This decision pleases you now, but what about another judge on the other side of an issue that is important to you?
You know, marriage has been declared a fundamental constitutional right by the Supreme Court 14 times since 1888. The last time it was used was I believe in 1967 to overturn a state judge's ruling in Virginia that it is acceptable to ban interracial marriage. We have to remember that the reason that our country is a federal republic and not a democracy is that the founding fathers insisted that the tyranny of the majority not be used to oppress the rights of the minority. Because of the precedent set by the Supreme Court, declaring marriage as I already said a fundamental constitutional right, it is their RESPONSIBILITY to take up this case. We have to remember that NO state has the authority to violate the US Constitution. The US went from forbidding African-Americans to marry EACH OTHER, to forbidding INTERRACIAL marriage, and now we allow any race to marry any other. Judicial "Activism" is a term that is usually used to describe a judge's ruling that they disagree with. The constitution does NOT allow for the granting of fundamental constitutional rights to one group and not another.
Dude honestly... Says something about its basis in reality? What kind of acid trip are you on and where can I get some? Dont copy and paste passages out of philosophy books and try to pass them off as your own. Its pathetic.
[ QUOTE]Sorry, but I think Scalia is a neo-con numbskull. Why should "natural law" be dictated by the tyranny of the majority? 200 years ago his majority endorsed the "natural law" of slavery.
1) Abortion is the right of a woman over her own body to determine her own reproduction. Where is it written in our Constitution that the "tyranny of the majority" has the right to force her to have an unwanted baby? (BTW, U.S. crime rates have dropped dramatically last 20 years due to Roe v. Wade)
2) Assisted suicide should also be a free choice between a person and their doctor. Who gave the "tyranny of the majority" any right to interfere?
3) If people of the same sex love each other, where is it written in the Constitution that the "tyranny of the majority" can criminalize their love or prevent them from getting married?
These are all basic human rights.
Scalia's disregard of individual human rights is shameful.[/I][/I][/QUOTE]
Actually 200 years ago it was a Republican named Abraham Lincoln who fought a war to end slavery. Why do you try to associate Justice Scalia with the views of those who lived 200 years ago? That is completely out of line and destroys the integrity of your argument. 1) Justice Scalia does not believe a woman should have legal access to abortion on demand. The state has a compelling interest to preserve and protect life. End of story. Furthermore, the abortion clinics are not within walking distance of white middle class America. They are located downtown. In the middle of the ghettos and projects. For someone so eager to accuse a Supreme Court Justice of racism you have unsurprisingly little concern for the generations of black Americans being wiped out legally everyday in the poorest neighborhoods in the country. The overwhelming majority of abortions performed in this country are of black children. The democratic party is accomplishing what the KKK never could! Moreover, that statistic about the crime rate you dropped couldn't have anything to do with police officers doing a more efficient job or any other of the myriad of factors that contribute to a country's overall crime rate could it? No. I'm sure youre right it was probably Roe v. Wade...yea. 2) Assisted suicide is not a politically divisive issue. The overwhelming majority of American believe that the previously declared wishes of the patient should be respected. The problems occur when those wishes have not been properly documented and judges are forced to decide who to believe regarding certain alleged previously declared statements. No one is forcing a feeding tube into anyone here. So you are way off base there, sorry. 3) And please follow closely when I explain this; Children who grow up with parents who smoke are substantially more likely to smoke themselves. Children who grow up with parents who drink alcohol are substantially more likely to drink. Children who grow up with parents with criminal records are substantially more likely to see what the inside of a prison cell looks like etc...etc...etc. This is not complicated to understand. So children who grow up with gay parents are substantially more likely to become...YES!!! Gay themselves. The state has an overriding compelling interest to promote heterosexual relationships in order to insure its own posterity and ultimate survival. If you disagree with Justice Scalia thats ok. So does Justice Ginsburg and they regularly dine and attend the opera together. I just feel sorry for you because something intelligent inside of you brought you to this website in the first place, however, your comments stunningly reveal your lack of thorough research on the topics you speak of. Its as if you had never read any of the arguments against the positions you hold. Please do not speak in any academic forum whatever until you can articulate your position with more authority. Otherwise, you serve as a living, breathing liberal stereotype for intellectual conservatives to use as target practice.
The idea that natural law needs to be put to a vote says something about its basis in reality.
The evincing indictment of opinion as opinion really obscures the point of "Fora2" that majoritarian policies based on "natural law" can have the effect of eroding the social contract between the Federal government and individual citizens. In reality, the statement is neither an opinion or a belief, but an obvious value judgment.
Citizens can be radically sterilized and in a sense disenfranchised by this rhetorical arbitration of "mass opinion," that revokes or discredits their sovereign judgment (associated with rights and practice) with recourse to the theoretical virtues of "democratic" social participation and ultimately a kind of tepid mental acquiescence.
The seemingly unquestioned notion that individuals do not possess a juridical capacity in their daily lives, but that their lot is reduced to the field of notions and opinions, is probably far more elitist than the idea that educated individuals are more qualified to look at an issue with a measure of objectification, ostensibly an inculcated value of educational institutions.
It is perhaps more useful to have the erudition of judgments by which it may be easier to discern the rightness and wrongness of evident reasoning, than the bland, unelaborated aggregation of mass opinion, whose validity is negotiated based not on content but prevalence, and whose force cannot be overturned except by an analogous force (the prospect of majoritarian tyranny).
There may be something inherently democratic in careful reasoning that does not necessarily need to be "automated" through referendums.
Scalia seems to think his job is to judge natural law. It is not. His job is to judge Constitutional law. The question is not whether there "ought to be a right" to abortion, or whatever, but whether such rights are consistent with the US Constitution. His dissent in Lawrence v Texas, complaining that the majority was caving in to the "homosexual agenda" shows that Scalia has grossly misconstrued the purpose of the Supreme Court. Rather than consult his vague, personal feelings about natural law, he needs to review case law and the Constitution to decide whether the case before him is consistent with the philosophy of the humans who created America. Yes, humans. America is not a Divine Construct, but a social contract--one which he seems too eager to violate to suit his narrow, personal "philosophy."
I feel like his comment about how he is no more qualified to define "natural law" than Joe Six pack irrelevant. He operates with a democratic framework, the constitution, which exemplifies a democratically negotiated assessment of how our society defines "natural law". I love that Kissinger quote though.