TCUnation
social network for conservatives
The Elephant in the Room: Obama vs. United States The president is contemptuous of American values. And one key nominee prefers the judgment of other countries and global elites.
By Rick Santorum Posted on Thu, Apr. 9, 2009
Watching President Obama apologize last week for America's arrogance - before a French audience that owes its freedom to the sacrifices of Americans - helped convince me that he has a deep-seated antipathy toward American values and traditions. His nomination of former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh to be the State Department's top lawyer constitutes further evidence of his disdain for American values.
This seemingly obscure position in Foggy Bottom's bureaucratic maze is one of the most important in any administration, shaping foreign policy in the courts and playing a critical role in international negotiations and treaties.
Let's set aside Koh's disputed comments about the possible application of Sharia law in American jurisprudence. The pick is alarming for more fundamental reasons having to do with national sovereignty and constitutional self-governance.
What is indisputable is that Koh calls himself a "transnationalist." He believes U.S. courts "must look beyond national interest to the mutual interests of all nations in a smoothly functioning international legal regime. ..." He thinks the courts have "a central role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law" and should "use their interpretive powers to promote the development of a global legal system."
Koh's "transnationalism" stands in contrast to good, old-fashioned notions of national sovereignty, in which our Constitution is the highest law of the land. In the traditional view, controversial matters, whatever they may be, are subject to democratic debate here. They should be resolved by the American people and their representatives, not "internationalized." What Holland or Belgium or Kenya or any other nation or coalition of nations thinks has no bearing on our exercise of executive, legislative, or judicial power.
Koh disagrees. He would decide such matters based on the views of other countries or transnational organizations - or, rather, those entities' elites.
Unsurprisingly, Koh is a strong supporter of the International Criminal Court, which could subject U.S. soldiers and officials to foreign criminal trials for their actions while fighting for our security. He has recommended that American lawyers work to "undermine" official American opposition to the court.
If only Koh's transnationalism ended there. Our Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment? Koh believes it should be reinterpreted in light of foreign and international law to pay "decent respect to the opinions of humankind."
Old fogies like me believe we ought to pay more attention to the opinions of the Founders who wrote the Constitution and the people who have lived under it. If Americans want to end the death penalty, they can do so through their elected state representatives.
If foreign opinions trump those of Pennsylvanians on capital punishment, why not on other issues? Why not, indeed: Koh thinks "international comity" trumps American sovereignty. He believes that, since certain nations recognize a right to same-sex marriage, our courts should, too. He wrote that "the principles of human dignity and autonomy that are the essence of the modern right-protecting democracy demand that civil marriage be available to all couples and that the equality of all citizens triumph over historical attitudes."
What's beneath this legal jargon? Simply this: Even if marriage in Pennsylvania has always been understood as involving one man and one woman - even if Pennsylvanians, through referendum or constitutional amendment, decide it should remain so - none of that should count. What should count are the views of courts in other nations or international bodies.
"I'd rather have [Supreme Court Justice Harry] Blackmun, who used the wrong reasoning in Roe to get the right results," Koh wrote of the landmark abortion case, "and let other people figure out the right reasoning."
Stunning and revealing: Koh tells us it doesn't matter if the right to abortion can be found in the Constitution. In fact, he concedes that Blackmun's reasoning was wrong. But it is up to others to get it right. How? By finding out what the United Nations, European Union, or particular European nations think.
Koh tops the list of Obama's potential Supreme Court nominees. Is this what Sen. John Kerry meant when he once suggested that American policy must pass a "global test"? Or what Barack Obama meant when he said last week that we have failed to "appreciate Europe's leading role in the world"? Or when he spoke of "change we can believe in"? And just who are "we"?
________________________________________
E-mail Rick Santorum at rsantorum@phillynews.com.
Watching President Obama apologize last week for America's arrogance - before a French audience that owes its freedom to the sacrifices of Americans - helped convince me that he has a deep-seated antipathy toward American values and traditions. His nomination of former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh to be the State Department's top lawyer constitutes further evidence of his disdain for American values.
This seemingly obscure position in Foggy Bottom's bureaucratic maze is one of the most important in any administration, shaping foreign policy in the courts and playing a critical role in international negotiations and treaties.
Let's set aside Koh's disputed comments about the possible application of Sharia law in American jurisprudence. The pick is alarming for more fundamental reasons having to do with national sovereignty and constitutional self-governance.
What is indisputable is that Koh calls himself a "transnationalist." He believes U.S. courts "must look beyond national interest to the mutual interests of all nations in a smoothly functioning international legal regime. ..." He thinks the courts have "a central role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law" and should "use their interpretive powers to promote the development of a global legal system."
Koh's "transnationalism" stands in contrast to good, old-fashioned notions of national sovereignty, in which our Constitution is the highest law of the land. In the traditional view, controversial matters, whatever they may be, are subject to democratic debate here. They should be resolved by the American people and their representatives, not "internationalized." What Holland or Belgium or Kenya or any other nation or coalition of nations thinks has no bearing on our exercise of executive, legislative, or judicial power.
Koh disagrees. He would decide such matters based on the views of other countries or transnational organizations - or, rather, those entities' elites.
Unsurprisingly, Koh is a strong supporter of the International Criminal Court, which could subject U.S. soldiers and officials to foreign criminal trials for their actions while fighting for our security. He has recommended that American lawyers work to "undermine" official American opposition to the court.
If only Koh's transnationalism ended there. Our Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment? Koh believes it should be reinterpreted in light of foreign and international law to pay "decent respect to the opinions of humankind."
Old fogies like me believe we ought to pay more attention to the opinions of the Founders who wrote the Constitution and the people who have lived under it. If Americans want to end the death penalty, they can do so through their elected state representatives.
If foreign opinions trump those of Pennsylvanians on capital punishment, why not on other issues? Why not, indeed: Koh thinks "international comity" trumps American sovereignty. He believes that, since certain nations recognize a right to same-sex marriage, our courts should, too. He wrote that "the principles of human dignity and autonomy that are the essence of the modern right-protecting democracy demand that civil marriage be available to all couples and that the equality of all citizens triumph over historical attitudes."
What's beneath this legal jargon? Simply this: Even if marriage in Pennsylvania has always been understood as involving one man and one woman - even if Pennsylvanians, through referendum or constitutional amendment, decide it should remain so - none of that should count. What should count are the views of courts in other nations or international bodies.
"I'd rather have [Supreme Court Justice Harry] Blackmun, who used the wrong reasoning in Roe to get the right results," Koh wrote of the landmark abortion case, "and let other people figure out the right reasoning."
Stunning and revealing: Koh tells us it doesn't matter if the right to abortion can be found in the Constitution. In fact, he concedes that Blackmun's reasoning was wrong. But it is up to others to get it right. How? By finding out what the United Nations, European Union, or particular European nations think.
Koh tops the list of Obama's potential Supreme Court nominees. Is this what Sen. John Kerry meant when he once suggested that American policy must pass a "global test"? Or what Barack Obama meant when he said last week that we have failed to "appreciate Europe's leading role in the world"? Or when he spoke of "change we can believe in"? And just who are "we"?
________________________________________
E-mail Rick Santorum at rsantorum@phillynews.com.
Comment
-
Comment by mani on April 13, 2009 at 10:28am -
Well i say if we are gonna go to extremes. Then Let it be that we as a nation decide that "life" is only "life" when the child comes out of a womans womb. Let it be, where a 9 month preg woman can kill a child and still be innocent becuase we as a nation have concluded that its only a life (when its out of a womans womb upon birth). Let us ride ourselves of laws which state that if a drunk driver kills a preg womans he/ she be charged with double murder. Let us also ride ourselves of the laws that state that if a bf or husband beats his wife or gf and that results in the death of the unborn child (that the abuser be charged with murder). The current state of affairs simply suggest that (its a life) when a woman wants to keep the baby. But its not a life if the woman does not want to keep the baby. So why not ride ourselves of these rediculous laws once and for all?
The biblical interpretation has very little to do with if an unborn child is a life or not. This is a matter that transends christianity. People from all differant religions believe an unborn child to be a life, even people who belong to no faith consider an unborn child a life. So no sharona, its not a matter of christianity. Its a matter of humanity.
-
Comment by Anna-Marie on April 12, 2009 at 7:33am -
Take religion out of it, for a moment, and apply reason. What is Abortion? The decapitation and dismemberment of a human fetus. If you read the book, "Abortion Practice" written by an abortionist and see the pictures of an aborted fetus, you don't have to be religious to conclude that this is unacceptable on every level. We don't treat captured terrorists this way, why an innocent human being?
-
Comment by Sharona on April 11, 2009 at 9:53pm -
Understood, but some thinks life starts at conception some at birth so it is how someone interprets the bible or their belief. So if you have two different theories, who is right? Who decides who is right when there are two beliefs?
-
Comment by mani on April 11, 2009 at 9:41pm
-
the right of a woman and her body (ends when another life is involved). think of it this way, if i buy a car and say (its my right to blow that car up. i will be correct). BUt when i say its my right to blow up my car, when someones inside that car (that right kinda stops becuase another life is involved).
-
Comment by Sharona on April 11, 2009 at 3:58pm
-
This may be a libertarian way of thinking, but I am all for small, less government. That being said, shouldn't government stay out of people's rights ie, right to ingest whatever substance they chose, the right of a woman and her body, the right for people to make their way in life and not have a handout and get paid to stay home? Just a thought. I just finished reading a book by Larry Elder, "The Ten Things you can't say in America". Great read. From what I interpreted from the book was that government should have some governing ie: criminal laws for violent offenders etc. but no government assistance, no IRS, no farm subsidies, nothing. Americans have the opportunity to make something of themselves but it is up to them. No affirmative action either. I really enjoyed this book.
-
Comment by Chaplain Thomas Gilbert Cole on April 11, 2009 at 8:11am
-
Who can deny that Obama, and his administration are ant-Christian, anti-American??? The "murder of the innocent(aborticide)," America is {NOT} a Christian Nation, etc., etc., etc.!!!" WE are experiencing an attack by hate mongering, terrorist, traitors, and domestic enemies. General Of The Armies George Washington stated: "LET ONLY AMERICANS STAND GUARD".
"Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in he power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, AGAINST SPIRITUAL WICKEDNESS IN HIGH PLACES." Ephesians 6 : 10-12(capitals this servant of Almighty God). BE OF GOOD COURAGE, BE HEARD!
-
Comment by Susan on April 11, 2009 at 6:05am
-
It is unfortunate that we are quickly being led off as lambs to the slaughter. We are slowly loosing our freedoms of which our forefathers fought and bled and died to uphold. I don't think Obama has any idea about United States history. No telling how long he sat in an Indonesian Muslim school, being influenced by their teachings. Oh and what about his preposterous suggestion that we are no longer a Christian nation. His policies are driving this nation into a new world order and it is sickening.
© 2013 Created by Earl B.
You need to be a member of TCUnation to add comments!
Join TCUnation