Landmark Baptist

Article VI- Constitution the supreme law of the land. Foreign law is where we got the bright idea that we should not execute a minor convicted of murder. Do we really want to go there?

There's nothing wrong with looking at foreign laws and taking the best ideas from those and incorporating them into our laws. However, that should be done in the legislative branch, not the judicial. Justice Ginsburg has no business referenceing foreign law in making rulings.

I didn't know she was looking at foreign law, I thought she was looking at international law, which is a lot more dangerous. The day the justices start looking at UN law, and so on to make their rulings, that's the day the US has surrendered her sovereignty over her own citizens.

Bro Mike

My first instinct was (your off your stinking rocker your head has been baked in the Utah sun way to long you freaking nut case), with all due respect and humility. Just Kidding.

In all sincerity though Bro Acker is correct it is NOT the job of the Supreme Court (or any lower court for that matter) to look to laws outside of the U.S. to determine or adjudicate American laws and or OUR Constitution. If the legislature takes on this task it is within their role in our checks and balance system to do so, although the times that they have we still end up with some whacky stuff on the legal books.

Although Ruth Bader Ginsberg has been a terrible Supreme Court Justice she is actually not the one that favors this method the most, that dubious distinction goes to Justice Breyer. BElow is an article with which Breyer and Scalia contend with each other over this topic.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1105364112559

Code: Select all

Justice Antonin Scalia chastised the "arrogance" of U.S. judges who seek to decide politically charged questions involving gay rights and the death penalty by citing international law.

The conservative judge sparred Thursday with Justice Stephen G. Breyer in a rare televised debate at American University on the role of foreign judgments in deciding Supreme Court cases.

Scalia bemoaned a recent trend on the high court in citing international opinion to support decisions interpreting the U.S. Constitution, including those decriminalizing gay sex and banning the execution of the mentally retarded.

"What you're looking for are the standards of decency of American society," Scalia said. "What does an opinion of a wise Zimbabwe judge have to do with what Americans believe?

"Doesn't it seem arrogant to think I can decide moral views for penology, death penalty and abortion?" he said, arguing that elected legislatures should make those decisions.

Breyer responded that international opinion can be relevant in determining fundamental freedoms in a more global society.

"U.S. law is not handed down from on high even at the U.S. Supreme Court," he said. "The law emerges from a conversation with judges, lawyers, professors and law students ... it's what I call opening your eyes as to what's going on elsewhere.''

The debate foreshadows a divide on the Court over the constitutionality of executing juvenile killers, a ruling that could come as early this week. Four justices, including Breyer, have announced their willingness to strike it down, based in part on the overwhelming international sentiment against it.

But Scalia and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas, both fellow conservatives, have derided the relevance. If justices believe foreign judgments are decisive on these moral cases, they should ban abortion since most other countries do so, Scalia said.

The event, which was broadcast live on C-SPAN, provided a rare televised look at the justices. Cameras are banned at the Supreme Court, and Scalia, who is no fan of the media, typically bars TV coverage and tape-recording of his public speeches.

International law is not written with the best interest of American citizens in mind... quite the opposite.

Utahlandmarker wrote:I am not concerned for the best interest of Americans. My concern really is the best interest of God's Kingdom (the one I am a part of). I am not caught up in "patriotism" or worldly nations. As I have said before I am not Patriotic. I am an American citizen that is of the Kingdom of God. That is the nation or kingdom I am more concerned with.

Wow, you are so enlightened. I'm impressed... really.

Though we recognize God's sovereignty, and thus we worship Him and seek His will through prayer and Bible study, we are still subject to earthly governments. (The Kingdom of Heaven cult in Texas has learned this lesson the hard way, as have the Branch Davidians.) The Bible teaches us to obey the laws of the land.

I am blessed that I am an American and Texas citizen. Both governments recongnize (though it is dwindling) the separation of church and state and the free exercise of religion. In other words, I can freely preach the Gospel, evangelize others, and this can be done without having to be armed or in hiding because our government recognizes that we have those inalienable rights. As such, I am concerned with what's in the best interest of Americans because I want to see the liberties that we enjoy in this great country be preserved. International law is opposed to those very liberties I cite. I dare say, American law is far superior to international law, especially in regards to the treatment of God's people.

Bro. Mike,

As Chris's post points out clearly, the movement to recognize international law in our court decisions is a phase of the movement toward globalization.

Brother Johnathan I take it the Brother part before my name got caught in your throat.


JK.

The Supreme Court does not only reference the Constitution in their rulings, they also reference precedents (earlier rulings made by UI.S. Courts). This would be equivalent to our use of commentaries. Many of our brethren look to writers like Bogard, Graves, Kirkland, and so on to see how Baptists of yesteryear interpreted key verses of the Bible, and how they applied those verses in the context of the local NT churches. I see no violation there.

As for Bible translations, those who use modern translations are not doing so thinking that they have found an improvement on God's Word, they do so thinking they have found a more concise translation of God's Word. In other words, they are truly trying to stay true to God's Word. Whether those translations are better translations is a debate I'd rather not engage here, because I'm tired of the discussion. I use KJV, I encourage the use of KJV. End of story. I see no reason to dedicate, yet, another forum, thread and column to this debate. (It' already rages in the convtroversy forum, the InDefenseofLAndmarkism blog, and several blogs of our brethren.

Bro. Acker,

It is a debate that we must have. We cannot sweep it under the rug. Many would say we are "majoring on the minors," but it's a question of the Word of God. Those who favor the KJV only as an English translation (which I do) believe what God said about preserving His word. That is one of the primary reasons I am here at this seminary (LMBIS). Those who are for modern translations generally are all quick to try to point out weaknesses in the KJV, believe God only preserved His word in what was originally written, and believe that it is impossible to fully translate the meaning of the original, but that at least we have "the message." Brother, that is disturbing to me. "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Brother, they can't all be right because there are too many differences.

It's not that I don't think it should be debated, it's that I don't want to see it as being the ONLY debate we have. CalvaryYouth posted a lot of information on the KJV issue in the Convtoversy forum several weeks ago, and the information he posted was discussed at great length. The KJV issue, if I'm not mistaken, has come up on your blog, as well as some of hte blogs of the Lousiana and Arkansas brethren, which is all well and good.

What I don't want to see is a landmark discussion site where you pull up "Mission Reports" and find a KJV debate, then pull up Sunday School Techniques, and find a KJV debate, then "Evangelism Techniques" only to find KJV debates, "General Bible Discussion," only to find yet another KJV debate, and so on. I realize that I am exaggerating, but that is what I was trying to get at.

Still, Bro. Mike's point about some Christians defending the Constitution with more ferver than KJV is well taken and kind of revealing.

Your concerns about the KJV and the view that God's word can not be fully translated are very valid concerns. Just so you know where I stand.

Utahlandmarker wrote:... As I have said before I am not Patriotic...

Is this a true reflection of your thinking or was it just part of the act?

Utahlandmarker wrote:By all definitions I have heard used for "patriotism" I would not qualify.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary [K-Z]
patriotism
PAT'RIOTISM ,n. Love of one's country; the passion which aims to serve one's country, either in defending it from invasion, or protecting its rights and maintaining its laws and institutions in vigor and purity. Patriotism is the characteristic of a good citizen, the noblest passion that animates a man in the character of a citizen.

Is this also a definition of patriotism that would disqualify you? If so, why?

No one is saying that the Bible requires us to be nationailistic or patriotic, but in a nation that acknowledges God, His sovereignty and presence in its founding documents, and recognizes our freedom to worship Him (1st Ammendment), I have a hard time understanding why one would not be patriotic toward that.