US Supreme Court Is Ruled by Global Opinions


By Nicki Fellenzer

I saw something in the news this afternoon that made my blood boil!

Justice Ginsburg says Supreme Court is no longer "lone-ranger" in decision-making.

That’s 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” them.

"Our 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.”

Justices "are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives," said Ginsburg, who has supported a more global view of judicial decision making.

Let 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!

“Why 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?”

It’s 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…

“Human dignity is inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all state authority.” …

This 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.

“Everyone 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.”

While 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.

“Everyone 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.”

The 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 of “inviolable?”

According to Webster’s Dictionary, “inviolable” is defined as:

1 : secure from violation or profanation
2 : secure from assault or trespass : UNASSAILABLE

This does not mean, “Secure from violation or profanation until tyrants in three piece suits decide to pass a law saying otherwise.”

I 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.

Great 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 by others.

What 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 inviolate?

It 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!

And 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.

What kind of implications does this development have on our Second Amendment rights?

The picture is not pretty.

No 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.

“The 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.)

Ours 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.

What 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?

Will 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?

Will they cite the petty tyrannies of other nations to disarm the law-abiding, freedom-loving citizens of this nation?

Do 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?

But 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.

Our 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 Fellenzer

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 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.