Supreme Court Is Ruled by Global Opinions
By Nicki Fellenzer
saw something in the news this afternoon that made my blood
Ginsburg says Supreme Court is no longer "lone-ranger"
right, folks, you heard me right. The Supreme Court justices
apparently are no longer capable of making constitutional
decisions and deciphering right from wrong on their own.
Now they must turn to courts around the world to “help”
island or lone ranger mentality is beginning to change,"
Ginsburg said during a speech to the American Constitution
Society, a liberal lawyers group holding its first convention.”
becoming more open to comparative and international law
perspectives," said Ginsburg, who has supported
a more global view of judicial decision making.
me tell you something, folks, if that doesn’t send a cold
chill down your spine, you’re either not comprehending the
sickening implications of this “learned scholar’s” comments,
or you don’t care that the highest court in the land – the
tribunal whose job it is to ensure the constitutionality
of lower court decisions interpret the Constitution of the
United States – is apparently tossing aside the Law of the
Land in favor of global order decisions!
is she so concerned?” you might ask yourself. “After all,
other nations have courts too. Other nations have set legal
precedents. And after all, we do live in this world – we
are part of the international community. Why not take foreign
courts’ precedents into consideration when making a decision?”
very simple. No other nation has our Constitution. No other
nation in this world recognizes that certain rights are
inalienable, and not open to government interference, intrusion
or infringement. The United States of America was founded
upon the moral principles of personal rights – the right
to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And while
other countries may recognize these rights – their nations
were not founded upon those noble principles, and therefore,
they are open to government violation.
Look at the German Constitution, for instance…
dignity is inviolable. To respect and protect it is the
duty of all state authority.” …
might seem like a noble clause on its surface. But quite
frankly – human dignity is relative. What might be defined
as “dignity” to one person, may wholly depend on wholesale
appropriation by the government of another’s efforts and
earnings. “Dignity” to one man may include, clothing, food
and healthcare at others’ expense. These are things everyone
should earn, not rely on the state to procure for them via
others’ hard work and efforts. Another man’s dignity may
include a cherry-red Corvette, since (God forbid) one man’s
possession thereof may make another man feel inadequate.
And the Germans feel it’s the state’s duty to protect human
dignity? No thanks.
has the right to free development of his personality insofar
as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against
the constitutional order or against morality.”
I agree with the first portion of this concept, the second
is – again – open to relative perception. A Muslim might
find a woman who wears a skirt above the knee immoral, while
some fundamentalists find the wholesale slaughter of infidels
perfectly acceptable. Against which morality is the German
state trying to keep its citizenry from offending? The fundamental
rights of others are life, liberty and property (the pursuit
of happiness being a consequence of the above fundamental
rights). If the German constitution truly wanted to ensure
that the rights of others weren’t violated, they would leave
the last portion of this article out.
has the right to life and to physical integrity. The freedom
of the person is inviolable. Intrusion on these rights may
only be made pursuant to a statute.”
emphasis on the past portion of this article is mine. The
horrific contradiction contained in these few lines is so
monstrous, that I’m barely able to contain my revulsion.
Yes, you have the right to life and liberty, but the government
can violate them by passing a law! This is their definition
to Webster’s Dictionary, “inviolable” is defined as:
: secure from violation or profanation
2 : secure from assault or trespass : UNASSAILABLE
does not mean, “Secure from violation or profanation until
tyrants in three piece suits decide to pass a law saying
don’t know about you, dear readers, but to me -- when the
highest court of the nation which was founded on inalienable
rights, begins to rely on the decisions of tribunals from
countries that respect your fundamental rights only to the
point where the politician tyrants can pass a law violating
those rights, the essential roots of this nation are being
torn apart and hacked away.
Britain doesn’t even have a written constitution per se.
And while the United States Constitution was partially based
on the Magna Carta, which can be interpreted as a constitutive
document, and while the text is often considered a source
of protection against unjust rule, fact is the British are
subjects. They are a disarmed people, left at the mercy
of their own government, ruled by power-hungry politicians
whose hypocritical purpose is their own power. By disarming
the British subjects, and denying them the right to defend
themselves against criminal thugs, the British government
has essentially denied its subjects the right to life. For
certainly, the right to life also includes the right to
defend that life. And the right to property also embraces
the right to defend that property against theft or destruction
does it tell you when the highest court in the land cites
jurisprudence from nations that don’t even have the common
decency to respect fundamental rights enough to leave them
tells me one thing: that the Supreme Court has officially
rejected the very principles upon which this great nation
was founded – the principles of inalienable, absolute and
inviolate human rights!
when the nation’s highest court rejects those fundamental
principles, it’s not that farfetched to imagine that the
moral foundation of this land has been irrevocably shaken
– if not completely destroyed.
kind of implications does this development have on our Second
picture is not pretty.
other nation in the world recognizes that the right to keep
and bear arms is an inalienable right. No other nation specifically
strives to protect that right from government violation.
advantage of being armed… The Americans possess over the
people of all other nations … Notwithstanding the military
establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which
are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the
governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James
Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist
Paper No. 46.)
was a nation founded upon the principle that the people
rule the government, not the other way around. Ours was
a nation founded upon the belief that an armed populace
was the last stand against governmental tyranny. And ours
was a nation founded upon the principle that an armed populace
is the last line of defense to preserve liberty.
will happen if the Supreme Court’s “Lone Ranger” status
is again violated by a few collectivist “justices” who see
it fit to apply international law to their decision?
they rule the Second Amendment obsolete, because the neo-socialist
tyrannies of other nations do not recognize the fundamental
right to keep and bear arms as a protective force against
infringements on all others?
they cite the petty tyrannies of other nations to disarm
the law-abiding, freedom-loving citizens of this nation?
they even understand the monstrous underlying threat to
the very fabric of our nation they have created with this
unprecedented assault on the Law of the Land?
Ginsburg’s statements are disturbing on another level –
specifically, where does America’s sovereignty fit into
her fuzzy little globalist-collectivist reality? International
treaties not ratified by the Senate and signed by the President
are not US law. The Constitution is the Law of the Land.
The Constitution is specific and objective, not “comparative”
and relative. We are a nation based on moral principles,
on fundamental rights and the Constitution is our law. By
soiling the pristine document of our Republic with collectivist
garbage from others who do not respect the fundamental rights
of life, liberty and property as our nation does, nor recognize
them for the inviolate essences of human nature, they have
dishonored and denigrated those moral principles in favor
of a global view.
laws are ours. They, like our borders, shape the character
and nature of our country. They define who we are – our
national character – our moral base. Any Supreme Court “justice”
who has the brass balls to sully that character does not
belong on the bench.
Nicki is a US Army veteran, who spent
nearly four years in Frankfurt, Germany on active duty at
the American Forces Network. She is a former radio DJ and
news anchor and a Featured Writer and Newslinks Director
for Keepandbeararms.com. She is also a former contributing
editor to the National Rifle Association's newest monthly
magazine, Women's Outlook and writes occasionally for the
Libertarian Party. She resides in Virginia with her family.
We are also proud to have Nicki as regular contributor to
Armed Females of America.
Copyright © 2003 by Armed Females
of America. All rights reserved. Permission to redistribute
this article for noncommercial purposes is hereby granted,
provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety
and appropriate credit given.
This Page Printer