It is time to reference Boumediene v. Bush (2008) in which foreign nationals captured in combat and held outside the United States by the military as prisoners of war — a war in fact authorized by the Congress under Article I, Section 8, and waged by the President as Commander-In-Chief under Article II, Section 2 — possess the constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal court.
Judges have now began to sharply expand upon this role. As a result, every policy debate taking place within government, at every level, will become little more than a prelude for judicial resolution.
Then there is the Ninth Amendment. Justice Markman writes:
Another looming constitutional battleground concerns the meaning of the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Many 21st century constitutionalists understand this amendment to say that there is some unknown array of unenumerated rights that lie fallow in the Constitution, waiting only to be unearthed by far-sighted judges.
Professor Thomas Grey of the Stanford Law School has suggested, for example, that the Ninth Amendment constitutes a “license to constitutional decisionmakers to look beyond the substantive commands of the constitutional text to protect fundamental rights not expressed therein.” Rights to abortion, contraception, homosexual behavior, and similar sexual privacy rights have already been imposed by judges detecting such rights in the Ninth Amendment. The problem is that, in the words of Justices Stewart and Black, this understanding of the amendment “turns somersaults with history” and renders the courts a “day-to-day constitutional convention.”
The more conventional understanding of the Ninth Amendment has viewed it in the historical context of the Bill of Rights, of which it is a part. By this understanding, it was written to dispel any implication that by the specification of particular rights in the Bill of Rights, the people had implicitly relinquished to the new federal government rights not specified. Like the Tenth Amendment—which serves as a reminder that powers neither given to thefederal government nor prohibited to the states in the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people—the Ninth Amendment was adopted to emphasize that our national government is one of limited powers. Its principal purpose was to prevent an extension of federal power, not to provide an open-ended grant of judicial authority that would have the opposite effect.
It is their belief that international and domestic laws are merging into global laws. Nationalists claim that local national law applies. Future SCOTUS appointments will determine just how much sovereign law is displaced by overarching interests.
Transnationalism is a word that should alert all possible bells and klaxons and tones. If accepted and enacted, transnationalism would legitimize reliance by American judges upon foreign law in giving meaning to the binding of federal and state governments to international treaties and agreements never formally ratified by the United States Senate — much less enacted into law by our Congress.
Each and every incident of “war crimes” and “violations of the earth” would be prosecutable, as complicit by the US.
This is and would be, the ruination of our entire nation.
We HOLD power.
Whatever we GIVE AWAY, that is our determination.
President Lincoln said “Would we be far wrong, if we defined [sovereignty] as a political community without a political superior?”
A LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY:
Consider the European Union. Whatever treaties existed extant would be subsumed into EU precedence. The EU — as it stands today, as wavering as it exists — is not backed by as immutable a document as the US Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton wrote:
“A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle.”
His point was that if you do not have a national government you can’t expect to remain a nation.
Further, there are Spanish judges who want to arrest American politicians if they venture into Europe, in order to try them for war crimes. This is insanity.
It is not impossible for the United States to lose its sovereignty, if it purposely chooses not to protest or make a public refusal to various international demands.
To wit: EU administrators have already accepted that any kind of “treaty” is somehow superior to their own national constitutions. To the point where, when regulations are spit forth from the European Commission, they supercede statutes and constitutions.
But here’s the amazing point to note: the European Union does NOT have a “constitution” itself!
The EU claims political superiority over member states but declines to be responsible for their defense. As if “defense” is an issue that simply does not “factor.”
The “Kyoto Protocol” is another example. Had we signed on, it would have turned over massive amounts of decision-making from our country UP to “international authorities.” Authorities who couldn’t care less about our position, our history, our future. Mr Obama would love to re-negotiate another treaty along these lines.
As I wrote previously, the International Red Cross draws no lines. The US is on par with Yemen or Syria. The IRC already works against US soldiers.
In Europe, it doesn’t mean much to be French or British or Italian any more.
The Progressives and Leftists of this country would quite enjoy removing US sovereignty and upfitting, to a global authority, your individual rights to life, liberty, private property, speech, writing, responsibility.
If we willingly allow more of our national policy to be made at an international level, our government has not only less determination but less moral authority to determine what it is to be an American.
When everyone is “equal” and everything is “the same” then no one has freedom and everyone is subjugated.