EDITORIAL: Foreign law rules in U.S. courts – Washington Times

EDITORIAL: Foreign law rules in U.S. courts – Washington Times.

Supremes say state laws cannot offend touchy leaders abroad

Can U.S. state laws be overturned because foreign governments don’t like them? According to the Supreme Court, the answer is yes.

In Arizona v. U.S., the case over Arizona’s S.B. 1070 immigration law, the Supreme Court gave one of the most comprehensive arguments yet justifying foreign influence over U.S. jurisprudence. In arguing for complete federal authority over immigration policy, the court decided on Monday that state statutes had to bow to the convenience of the executive in managing foreign policy. “Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism and diplomatic relations for the entire nation, as well as the perceptions and expectations of aliens in this country who seek the full protection of its laws,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

The court claimed it is “fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate states.” States like Arizona should not be permitted to intrude on “*ne of the most important and delicate of all international relationships,” namely “the protection of the just rights of a country’s own nationals when those nationals are in another country.”

This is twisted logic. It asserts that because foreign leaders might browbeat an American president over a state mandate, that law must be invalidated. Because foreign governments may be concerned about the rights – real or imagined – of their citizens who entered the United States illegally, the “delicate relationship” between the countries overrides any other concerns.

The court also fretted that, “perceived mistreatment of aliens in the United States may lead to harmful reciprocal treatment of American citizens abroad.” This argument was put forward in an amicus brief by former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, among others. It cited an example in 2004 when Brazil singled out American nationals for “fingerprinting and photographing upon entry into Brazil to respond in equal measure to the U.S. fingerprinting of foreign nationals under the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002.” This anecdote, however, was about a federal – not a state – practice and as such doesn’t support the court’s conclusion.

Trying to read international customs into U.S. constitutional law is the latest leftist fad. In September 2010, Justice Stephen G. Breyer raised eyebrows when he speculated on “Good Morning America” that the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights may have to be limited because of their potential impact in foreign countries. In this case, he was concerned that Americans engaged in protected symbolic political speech by burning Korans would cause foreign extremists to riot. “[Turn-of-the-century Justice Oliver Wendell] Holmes said [free speech] doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” Justice Breyer waxed. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?” The answer is: American freedom.

The Washington Times


But will anything happen? – Tea Party Nation

Gsa seal

Gsa seal (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

But will anything happen? – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

Darryl Issa and other Congressmen are kicking off an investigation into the out of control Government Services Administration and the GSA’s blatant and possibly criminal misuse of taxpayer dollars.

 Well, it is about time but will anything happen?

 From Fox News:

 Congress will kick off a wave of what are likely to be contentious hearings Monday on the spending habits of the General Services Administration, as lawmakers try to uncover how the agency blew through $820,000 on a Las Vegas conference.

 The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, one of four panels probing the incident, has set the first hearing for Monday afternoon. The panel has called some of the top current and former GSA officials to testify, though at least one is expected to invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to answer questions.

 Lawmakers at this point are looking beyond the 2010 conference itself and into other areas where the agency may have spent money imprudently, such as on employee incentive programs. The hearing will surely fuel the controversy, which has expanded almost daily as new details emerge about the decision-making at the top levels of the GSA.

 Among those on the witness list Monday are GSA Inspector General Brian Miller and former GSA Administrator Martha Johnson, who resigned in the wake of the inspector general’s report on the conference.

 The head of the GSA western region who organized the conference, Jeffrey Neely, has said through an attorney that he plans to plead the Fifth. His attorney says Neely doesn’t need to come to D.C., but Issa insists he should appear anyway.

  While Obama is still President, do not expect any real changes in the GSA. 

 But Congress can act. 

 The left always uses the excuse of waste, fraud and abuse to cut the Defense budget.  Well you have some serious waste, fraud and abuse here.  The solution is to cut the GSA’s budget.  In fact, why not just eliminated this agency?

 Just line out the money the agency uses and fire all of the employees.  It is tough but we taxpayers are pretty angry about the way our tax dollars are being spent. 

 Judging from those videos we saw, having those GSA employees lose their jobs; well, that’s no great loss.