Appropriate Role of Foreign Judgments in the Interpretation of American Law: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eighth Congress, Second Session, on H. Res. 568, March 25, 2004, Volumen4
United States, United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on the Constitution
U.S. Government Printing Office, 2004 - 60 páginas
Comentarios de la gente - Escribir un comentario
No encontramos ningún comentario en los lugares habituales.
Otras ediciones - Ver todas
actually adopt affection allowing Amendment American appropriate Atkins authority branches CHABOT Chairman Chief citation cited claim Committee common concerned CONGRESS THE LIBRARY consider Constitution countries course death penalty deciding decisions defend direct discussion elected European example execution express F CONGRESS fact Federal follows foreign law foreign materials founding give going human rights important independent international law interpretation issue JACKSON judges judgments judicial Judiciary jurisdictions Justice King Lawrence legislative LIBRARY CONGRESS LIBRARY OF CONGRESS look majority matter meaning Members moral and social opinion original practice precedent principle Professor protect provision question RABKIN reasons recent recognized references relevant relied Representatives resolution respect rule seems separation social policy sodomy sources speech statement stitution suggest Supreme Court talking Texas Thank things tion treaties trend U.S. Constitution U.S. courts understanding United values
Página 57 - At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
Página 15 - It has also been observed that an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains...
Página 4 - ... there can be no liberty ; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.
Página 15 - The decisions of the courts of every country, so far as they are founded upon a law common to every country, will be received, not as authority, but with respect. The decisions of the courts of every country show how the law of nations, in the given case, is understood in that country, and will be considered in adopting the rule which is to prevail in this.
Página 14 - An attention to the judgment of other nations is important to every Government, for two reasons : the one is, that independently of the merits of any particular plan or measure, it is desirable, on various accounts, that it should appear to other nations as the offspring of a wise and honorable policy...
Página 2 - The Court's discussion of these foreign views (ignoring, of course, the many countries that have retained criminal prohibitions on sodomy) is therefore meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since "this Court . . . should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans.
Página 28 - The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent.
Página 57 - there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.
Página 45 - State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.