Constitutional Amendment For Excluding Foreign Law?

[Diuretic]

I am well-aware of what the Constitution is based; which, is NOT what is being discussed here. I didn't say a damned thing about removing the history behind our law.

It is however, completely logical for US justices to make decisions based on US law, and not foreign ones, since US law DOES apply to us and foreign laws do not. I don't know how that could be any simpler.

There's nothing logical about it, that doesn't come into it. What it is is nativist dogma in black robes. I'm not referring the influence of foreign laws on the US, but of course international treaties do have and influence on you, like they should with anyone who signs them. There may be some domestic influence but one would think that if the government signs up to a treaty that such influence is acknowledged and accepted.

One of the strengths of the Australian legal system is its hybrid vigour. Instead of adopting a small-minded, nativist approach to interpretation of the law our judges feel free to look to sister legal systems for inspiration. Like it or not your law came from other than your shores, fine, ignore the antecedents, without hybrid vigour your legal system will eventually become dry, brittle and sterile. Anyway, why should I give a shit right?
I'm not a Merkan, so I am not allowed to discuss Merkan issues, right?

Oh, the Greeks called, they want their logic back, since you're not using it, they said you can devise your own system, keep it nice and pure.

 

[Diuretic]

A bit of a response from another writer:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_11_18-2007_11_24.shtml#1195418449

So, the argument is that your justices are too thick? I don't buy that for a moment. They're well educated people, they'd be aware of the stark differences between the two great legal systems in the world and how they've been applied in various jurisdictions. He doesn't get away with that too easily.

Anyway, I'm not enamoured of some aspects of English common law and its procedures, they could do with a good injection of Civil (ie Roman) Law to balance things out a bit.

 

[Annie]

So, the argument is that your justices are too thick? I don't buy that for a moment. They're well educated people, they'd be aware of the stark differences between the two great legal systems in the world and how they've been applied in various jurisdictions. He doesn't get away with that too easily.

Anyway, I'm not enamoured of some aspects of English common law and its procedures, they could do with a good injection of Civil (ie Roman) Law to balance things out a bit.

Why? We don't need other countries as a basis of our laws, as the argument went, there is too much to that body of information already. Even if not, we don't need to tell you not to use New Zealand or Fiji laws to have your justices render their decisions, that's up to your country.

 

[Diuretic]

LOL! Be that as it may be, there are reasons it was decided to stick with the written documents, including Constitution, letters, Federalists Papers, etc. Maybe we are just more neat, for it can's be said less legal centered. Federal law would take over a building, don't even get started on the states!

I'm not chucking a hand grenade in here. I think the Constitution is a work of genius. I have admired it from afar and up close. The Federalist Papers - I have to admit I find them confusing but in the context of the discussions between the two sides of the debate - they make sense. As to their strength in interpreting the Constitution, I have no idea but that sort of reliance on the debate is similar to one of the methods of interpretation used in English and English-system derived courts, which will frequently resort to the Hansard (record of parliamentary debates) to try and establish the intention of parliament. It's also similar to the French method of inviting legal academics to present contemporary and previous interpretations of the law. Not a bad idea I think.

But yes, you are neat - you've got everything in the National Archives so we can all go and perve on them - unlike the Brits where we have to go all over the country, visiting various places and paying exorbitant entry fees to see the important documents......ah, now I get it, bloody extortionist Brits!

 

[Diuretic]

Why? We don't need other countries as a basis of our laws, as the argument went, there is too much to that body of information already. Even if not, we don't need to tell you not to use New Zealand or Fiji laws to have your justices render their decisions, that's up to your country.

I'm not arguing that. As a sovereign state you make your own laws. What I was referring to was that the wellspring of those laws is common to all English common law-derived jurisdictions and that it would be useful to have regard to historical and contemporary jurisprudence, rather than allow your legal system (not the legislative system) to ossify. I'm arguing for your system to keep healthy by being interested in what's going on elsewhere. In a sense though it's almost a metaphor for your society. Don't be inward-looking all the time, you'll miss some good stuff going on elsewhere.

Just on New Zealand. We did use a great judgement from one of their judges (Salmond J.) concerning the interpretation of the original authority of a constable of police when that constable is working in a cohort with other police officers. It sorted out a very tricky legal issue. It was approved in superior court cases here and albeit became persuasive and not binding it was still very helpful.

 

[Annie]

I'm not arguing that. As a sovereign state you make your own laws. What I was referring to was that the wellspring of those laws is common to all English common law-derived jurisdictions and that it would be useful to have regard to historical and contemporary jurisprudence, rather than allow your legal system (not the legislative system) to ossify. I'm arguing for your system to keep healthy by being interested in what's going on elsewhere. In a sense though it's almost a metaphor for your society. Don't be inward-looking all the time, you'll miss some good stuff going on elsewhere.

Just on New Zealand. We did use a great judgement from one of their judges (Salmond J.) concerning the interpretation of the original authority of a constable of police when that constable is working in a cohort with other police officers. It sorted out a very tricky legal issue. It was approved in superior court cases here and albeit became persuasive and not binding it was still very helpful.

I am not familiar enough with your system to make judgments and even if I were, not my place. I will say that given the population, diversity, and size of our country ossification is unlikely to be a problem. The different levels of courts contribute to both the volume and complexity of our system, without needing to go 'outside.'

 

[Diuretic]

I am not familiar enough with your system to make judgments and even if I were, not my place. I will say that given the population, diversity, and size of our country ossification is unlikely to be a problem. The different levels of courts contribute to both the volume and complexity of our system, without needing to go 'outside.'

You know what's up Kathianne. I'm pointing out that America is in danger of becoming even more insular. The thinking that proposes a Constitutional amendment - which has to go through a tortuous amendment process (I was paying attention as I was being educated here in that process) - is a form of close-minded nativism. I say it's not healthy for you. And if I say it, you'd all better listen <---- just kidding.

If such an amendment succeeded then the rest of us would just shrug out shoulders, your legal system, you do what you like with it, but the subliminal message is clear - the rest of the world can go and get stuffed. Of itself it's not important. Frankly I don't care if the nativist amendment gets up, but it will inform me that you're all feeling like the world hates your guts. Not so. We're just waiting for a year or so for things to get back to normal. I've said that before.

This is just me but I see a country's legal system and I understand the country's culture. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not legal expert either, but I know enough to be able to at least contribute to a reasonable conversation and to be able to explore the metaphor of law as a part of culture. I'm interested in other nation's legal systems and I've taught on comparative legal sytems, so don't think I'm picking for the sake of it.

There's a real mixed message situation here. There you are, the USN is helping out in Bangladesh, altruism front and centre while the rest of the world hasn't got off its collective fat arse yet and you have this sort of thinking pervading some of the circles of government.

Sometimes you Merkans confuse me.

 

[Annie]

You know what's up Kathianne. I'm pointing out that America is in danger of becoming even more insular. The thinking that proposes a Constitutional amendment - which has to go through a tortuous amendment process (I was paying attention as I was being educated here in that process) - is a form of close-minded nativism. I say it's not healthy for you. And if I say it, you'd all better listen <---- just kidding.

If such an amendment succeeded then the rest of us would just shrug out shoulders, your legal system, you do what you like with it, but the subliminal message is clear - the rest of the world can go and get stuffed. Of itself it's not important. Frankly I don't care if the nativist amendment gets up, but it will inform me that you're all feeling like the world hates your guts. Not so. We're just waiting for a year or so for things to get back to normal. I've said that before.

This is just me but I see a country's legal system and I understand the country's culture. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not legal expert either, but I know enough to be able to at least contribute to a reasonable conversation and to be able to explore the metaphor of law as a part of culture. I'm interested in other nation's legal systems and I've taught on comparative legal sytems, so don't think I'm picking for the sake of it.

There's a real mixed message situation here. There you are, the USN is helping out in Bangladesh, altruism front and centre while the rest of the world hasn't got off its collective fat arse yet and you have this sort of thinking pervading some of the circles of government.

Sometimes you Merkans confuse me.

Ah, but as written in the first post, the chances of such an amendment are nil. We don't change the constitution all that easily and when we've done so, like prohibition we go back to what was.

So we should be shouldn't be insular? No, we shouldn't be unilateral. All the more reason to turn inwards I often think. Right now Russia is gaining power and once again starting to spend much more on military. China has been doing the same for quite awhile. Japan is stepping up. Who is not? Europe. Where is the threat from Islamicists? From Russia? Last I checked we and only Britain and France can mount anything NATO related. Then again, when Britain, France, Germany all tried to deal with Kosovo?

I really wonder what world reaction would be, if we just stayed home? Probably like our Democratic legislators, when the Republicans said to let the impeachment go forward...

 

[Diuretic]

Ah, but as written in the first post, the chances of such an amendment are nil. We don't change the constitution all that easily and when we've done so, like prohibition we go back to what was.

So we should be shouldn't be insular? No, we shouldn't be unilateral. All the more reason to turn inwards I often think. Right now Russia is gaining power and once again starting to spend much more on military. China has been doing the same for quite awhile. Japan is stepping up. Who is not? Europe. Where is the threat from Islamicists? From Russia? Last I checked we and only Britain and France can mount anything NATO related. Then again, when Britain, France, Germany all tried to deal with Kosovo?

I really wonder what world reaction would be, if we just stayed home? Probably like our Democratic legislators, when the Republicans said to let the impeachment go forward...

You picked it Kathianne. Russia is going to be a single party state (again) under Vlad P. It's heading down the path of "benign" dictatorship right now, it's experiment with liberal democracy just about finished. China has donned a Zegna suit, but underneath they've got their Mao duds on, China is still unashamedly totalitarian. Right there are the two biggest threats the world faces - I tell ya the Islamists are chickenfeed by comparison. Russia and China can blow up worlds, not just buses.

I find myself wondering if 9/11 hadn't happened, perhaps the US, in its foreign policy, would have seen the rise of the authoritarian Putin and the totalitarians in China (not that the totalitarians in China haven't been doing anything they've been doing for years, they're just dressing it up differently) been as swift and as apparently successful as they are now.
If the squabbling between the US and what Rumsfeld dismissed as "Old Europe" (now wisely brought back into the fold) hadn't erupted, would the EU be in a stronger partnership position with the US? I can face facts, the West without the US is cactus, kaput, buggered, but right now it seems to me that there is abroad in your country a resentment against the rest of the world, we ungrateful mongrels. Not that I blame you. We gave you heaps for electing Bush and Cheney - and rightly so, twin disasters they are. If you can stop Cheney bombing the crap out of Iran there might be hope for the West yet. If not, well, I've got a copy of Mao's Little Red Book, I may have to start memorising huge slabs of it.

On the other hand down here in Oz we might be able to keep vewy, vewy qwiet and hope that no-one notices us......

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You picked it Kathianne. Russia is going to be a single party state (again) under Vlad P. It's heading down the path of "benign" dictatorship right now, it's experiment with liberal democracy just about finished. China has donned a Zegna suit, but underneath they've got their Mao duds on, China is still unashamedly totalitarian. Right there are the two biggest threats the world faces - I tell ya the Islamists are chickenfeed by comparison. Russia and China can blow up worlds, not just buses.

I find myself wondering if 9/11 hadn't happened, perhaps the US, in its foreign policy, would have seen the rise of the authoritarian Putin and the totalitarians in China (not that the totalitarians in China haven't been doing anything they've been doing for years, they're just dressing it up differently) been as swift and as apparently successful as they are now.
If the squabbling between the US and what Rumsfeld dismissed as "Old Europe" (now wisely brought back into the fold) hadn't erupted, would the EU be in a stronger partnership position with the US? I can face facts, the West without the US is cactus, kaput, buggered, but right now it seems to me that there is abroad in your country a resentment against the rest of the world, we ungrateful mongrels. Not that I blame you. We gave you heaps for electing Bush and Cheney - and rightly so, twin disasters they are. If you can stop Cheney bombing the crap out of Iran there might be hope for the West yet. If not, well, I've got a copy of Mao's Little Red Book, I may have to start memorising huge slabs of it.

On the other hand down here in Oz we might be able to keep vewy, vewy qwiet and hope that no-one notices us......

Our courts have no business making legal decisions based on Foreign laws, plain and simple. The Courts must look to the legislatures for laws. They can not pick and chose what they want from around the world. It is NOT a power they hacve, never have and hopefully never will. Just like they are forbidden from making law from the bench.

As for foreign laws making it into our legal system, there IS a process for that already, it is called our legislatures. THEY have the sole power with consent of the Executive for creating new laws. All the courts are supposed to do is make decisions based on OUR laws.

Article III. - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article3

Clear and to the point.

and for the anal retentive...

11th Amendment

Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

 

[Diuretic]

There's a certain sad sterility to that thinking. If your citizens could have their judges and their judgements give enlightened decisions by the occasional (very occasional) reference to foreign judgements (keeping it court to court as it were) doesn't that mean a better outcome for your citizens.

Take the flurry over eminent domain - a concept at English common law which resonates with the authority of monarchy (transferred to democratic government). If the courts sought to advise themselves by, say, examining the English cases and that meant that, in doing so, the rights of individual citizens were bolstered against the rights of government (at all levels) wouldn't that be a good thing? Just a thought.

 

[Gunny]

There's nothing logical about it, that doesn't come into it. What it is is nativist dogma in black robes. I'm not referring the influence of foreign laws on the US, but of course international treaties do have and influence on you, like they should with anyone who signs them. There may be some domestic influence but one would think that if the government signs up to a treaty that such influence is acknowledged and accepted.

One of the strengths of the Australian legal system is its hybrid vigour. Instead of adopting a small-minded, nativist approach to interpretation of the law our judges feel free to look to sister legal systems for inspiration. Like it or not your law came from other than your shores, fine, ignore the antecedents, without hybrid vigour your legal system will eventually become dry, brittle and sterile. Anyway, why should I give a shit right?
I'm not a Merkan, so I am not allowed to discuss Merkan issues, right?

Oh, the Greeks called, they want their logic back, since you're not using it, they said you can devise your own system, keep it nice and pure.

It's perfectly logical. What is NOT logical is that you once again go off on an irrelevant tangent. We are not discussing international treaties. We are not discussing where our laws came from.

Where our laws came from is one topic. What our laws currently are is one topic. The two topics are not mutually inclusive.

The discussion concerns US justices making decisions in US courts concerning US citizens. Those decisions should be based on current US law. A completely logical argument; one, which you have yet to address without trying to twist the subject.

Don't like the law? Write your Congressman, but don't try laying that "you're ignorant and narrow-minded cuz I can't comprehend the topic" crap on me.

Oh, and international treaties, when signed, become binding US law, so that one's a wash for you too.

 

[Annie]

You picked it Kathianne. Russia is going to be a single party state (again) under Vlad P. It's heading down the path of "benign" dictatorship right now, it's experiment with liberal democracy just about finished. China has donned a Zegna suit, but underneath they've got their Mao duds on, China is still unashamedly totalitarian. Right there are the two biggest threats the world faces - I tell ya the Islamists are chickenfeed by comparison. Russia and China can blow up worlds, not just buses.

I find myself wondering if 9/11 hadn't happened, perhaps the US, in its foreign policy, would have seen the rise of the authoritarian Putin and the totalitarians in China (not that the totalitarians in China haven't been doing anything they've been doing for years, they're just dressing it up differently) been as swift and as apparently successful as they are now.

Certainly not swiftly, as I do not think Putin would not be doing what he is, if not for the wedge of Islamicism. On the other hand, I'm reticient to say that we wouldn't have reacted more strongly to what he's done, for that matter what Musharaff has done. But 9/11 did happen, on the long heels of many other attacks that were not responsded to.

If the squabbling between the US and what Rumsfeld dismissed as "Old Europe" (now wisely brought back into the fold)

We didn't bring them 'back into the fold, their electorates did that.

hadn't erupted, would the EU be in a stronger partnership position with the US?

No. They are in no stronger or weaker place than prior to 9/11, other than how the American electorate feels. I will say that the leaders of France, Germany, and UK have gone a long way to make that right. We really have very short fuse on staying mad. Quite forgiving, but also can be quick to take offense.

I can face facts, the West without the US is cactus, kaput, buggered, but right now it seems to me that there is abroad in your country a resentment against the rest of the world, we ungrateful mongrels. Not that I blame you. We gave you heaps for electing Bush and Cheney - and rightly so, twin disasters they are. If you can stop Cheney bombing the crap out of Iran there might be hope for the West yet. If not, well, I've got a copy of Mao's Little Red Book, I may have to start memorising huge slabs of it.

On the other hand down here in Oz we might be able to keep vewy, vewy qwiet and hope that no-one notices us......

I think I hear that, though I do think you are misjudging both our patience and our tolerance, not the same thing. We took heaps of nonsense and backstabbing from the French, yet when the hand of friendship is extended, it's not only accepted, it's embraced. When was the last time you saw similar from those that have disagreed with us?

 

[Diuretic]

Certainly not swiftly, as I do not think Putin would not be doing what he is, if not for the wedge of Islamicism. On the other hand, I'm reticient to say that we wouldn't have reacted more strongly to what he's done, for that matter what Musharaff has done. But 9/11 did happen, on the long heels of many other attacks that were not responsded to.

After the shambles of Yeltsin, Putin sailed into the oligarchs, stripping them of their wealth (the ones that didn't shoot through elsewhere) and nationalising their assets, particularly energy. He put a lid on Chechyna and nailed it shut. We'll never know what he's done there but I bet there are many bodies. He is ruthless and he intends to build Russia again as a superpower.

We didn't bring them 'back into the fold, their electorates did that.

I think electorates vote primarily on domestic issues rather than foreign policy. Germany booted out the red/green alliance of Schroeder and replaced it with the right wing government of Merkel. But Merkel is facing domestic unrest, I wonder how long she will last. However even if there is another red/green coalition in government it will be after the Bush White House (I would think) so it might find itself able to get closer to the US. In France a right-wing president who was anathema to the US (and a bit dodgy to the French it seems) was replaced with a right-wing president who is not anathema to the US. Again, elected on domestic issues I think.

No. They are in no stronger or weaker place than prior to 9/11, other than how the American electorate feels. I will say that the leaders of France, Germany, and UK have gone a long way to make that right. We really have very short fuse on staying mad. Quite forgiving, but also can be quick to take offense.

I don't think emotion should dictate foreign policy but I take your point. It will be interesting to see how PM Brown and his government relate to the US after Blair's misjudgement of British influence over US foreign policy.

I think I hear that, though I do think you are misjudging both our patience and our tolerance, not the same thing. We took heaps of nonsense and backstabbing from the French, yet when the hand of friendship is extended, it's not only accepted, it's embraced. When was the last time you saw similar from those that have disagreed with us?

Again, self-interest must be to the fore, it's the only thing countries understand of each other.

 

[Annie]

After the shambles of Yeltsin, Putin sailed into the oligarchs, stripping them of their wealth (the ones that didn't shoot through elsewhere) and nationalising their assets, particularly energy. He put a lid on Chechyna and nailed it shut. We'll never know what he's done there but I bet there are many bodies. He is ruthless and he intends to build Russia again as a superpower.




I think electorates vote primarily on domestic issues rather than foreign policy. Germany booted out the red/green alliance of Schroeder and replaced it with the right wing government of Merkel. But Merkel is facing domestic unrest, I wonder how long she will last. However even if there is another red/green coalition in government it will be after the Bush White House (I would think) so it might find itself able to get closer to the US. In France a right-wing president who was anathema to the US (and a bit dodgy to the French it seems) was replaced with a right-wing president who is not anathema to the US. Again, elected on domestic issues I think.





I don't think emotion should dictate foreign policy but I take your point. It will be interesting to see how PM Brown and his government relate to the US after Blair's misjudgement of British influence over US foreign policy.



Again, self-interest must be to the fore, it's the only thing countries understand of each other.

Great evading. Seriously none, not a one.

 

[Diuretic]

Great evading. Seriously none, not a one.

Not evading Kathianne, reflecting on your points. Sometimes it's possible to take the point and then think about associated issues rather than get into a pissing match, no matter how genteel. I took your points but not totally each time. But they did make me think of other things and I sort of springboarded off them. I am a stubborn and argumentative person when it comes to some things and I'm like that across the table from someone just as I am in reading and responding in an internet forum (I'm worse face to face actually - not that I'm too proud of it).

And if I said, "good points", I'd probably come across as a smug and superior type - which I'm not. I get told I'm patronising when I'm actually being quite sincere. It must have something to do with my delivery.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There's a certain sad sterility to that thinking. If your citizens could have their judges and their judgements give enlightened decisions by the occasional (very occasional) reference to foreign judgements (keeping it court to court as it were) doesn't that mean a better outcome for your citizens.

Take the flurry over eminent domain - a concept at English common law which resonates with the authority of monarchy (transferred to democratic government). If the courts sought to advise themselves by, say, examining the English cases and that meant that, in doing so, the rights of individual citizens were bolstered against the rights of government (at all levels) wouldn't that be a good thing? Just a thought.

A court only has and only should have power to make judgement based solely on accepted legal definitins and laws of the Country it is a part of. Legally only OUR laws matter in OUR country. One can not be held accountable for breaking a foreign law in in a separate Country, that is what extrediction is for.

A Judge on the Supreme Court can not determine the legality or "Constitutionality" of a law based on a FOREIGN statute or law. A citizen can not be held to have broken a law that does NOT exist in this country. Judges do NOT get to make new laws, that is the power of the Legislature with consent of the Executive.

If your courts are making judgements using laws not even existing in your country, that is NOT Justice.

 

[Diuretic]

A court only has and only should have power to make judgement based solely on accepted legal definitins and laws of the Country it is a part of. Legally only OUR laws matter in OUR country. One can not be held accountable for breaking a foreign law in in a separate Country, that is what extrediction is for.

Two different concepts there.

If you want your judges to ignore all other legal systems, fine, no problem, is there a smilie for an indifferent shrug? But, I made the point before, about hybrid vigour in your legal system. If you want it to become ossified, then fine, go ahead and deny your judges the right to think broadly. We'll continue to look to kindred jurisdictions for guidance when needed. For example, a Canadian Supreme Court case some years ago was approved by our High Court (and thus became binding in terms of precedent) because it wrapped up beautifully some difficult issues concerning the point at when preparation for a crime becomes an attempt - and, importantly, when it doesn't.

Your federal government has, for many years, had a very broad idea of the extraterritorial nature of US law, especially where corporate interests are concerned. I'd be okay with your shutting down your judges' ability to peruse other legal jurisdictions if you allowed the influence of your law stops are your borders.

A Judge on the Supreme Court can not determine the legality or "Constitutionality" of a law based on a FOREIGN statute or law. A citizen can not be held to have broken a law that does NOT exist in this country. Judges do NOT get to make new laws, that is the power of the Legislature with consent of the Executive.

True enough, unless the law exists in a jurisdiction it can't be broken.

If your courts are making judgements using laws not even existing in your country, that is NOT Justice.

They're not, but our courts habitually look to English judgements and will also look to other English common law jurisdictions for guidance. They're only persuasive anyway. But the US and ourselves and the rest of the common law jurisdictions are still guided by the ancient cases such as Entick v Carrington, the venerable cases that laid down the very tenets of the law we use today -

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIVs6.html

 

[CSM]

Whose morals? Yours or normal people?

Traditional America was segregation and slavery, sweatshops and slaughter of native Americans.

Yep... bring back the good old days of those traditional "morals"....

Key word "WAS"... not that today's morals are any better.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Two different concepts there.

If you want your judges to ignore all other legal systems, fine, no problem, is there a smilie for an indifferent shrug? But, I made the point before, about hybrid vigour in your legal system. If you want it to become ossified, then fine, go ahead and deny your judges the right to think broadly. We'll continue to look to kindred jurisdictions for guidance when needed. For example, a Canadian Supreme Court case some years ago was approved by our High Court (and thus became binding in terms of precedent) because it wrapped up beautifully some difficult issues concerning the point at when preparation for a crime becomes an attempt - and, importantly, when it doesn't.

Your federal government has, for many years, had a very broad idea of the extraterritorial nature of US law, especially where corporate interests are concerned. I'd be okay with your shutting down your judges' ability to peruse other legal jurisdictions if you allowed the influence of your law stops are your borders.



True enough, unless the law exists in a jurisdiction it can't be broken.



They're not, but our courts habitually look to English judgements and will also look to other English common law jurisdictions for guidance. They're only persuasive anyway. But the US and ourselves and the rest of the common law jurisdictions are still guided by the ancient cases such as Entick v Carrington, the venerable cases that laid down the very tenets of the law we use today -

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIVs6.html

Recently we had a Supreme Court Justice cite Foreign law as a reason for ( I believe he was in opposition to the majority) his opposition to a ruling by that Court. And I believe that at least once a Supreme Court Decision alluded to foreign laws as a basis for some decision. This is WRONG. The Court has only the power granted it by the Constitution and that specifically STATES where they decide issues from.

Once again the process for bringing in Foreign law is through treaty ( making it binding legal law for the Country) or through acts of the Legislature.

As for Corporate law... Want to do business in our Country? Follow our laws. Want to be a US Corporation? Follow our laws no matter where you do business.