JUDGES should interpret the Constitution according to other nations’ legal “norms.” Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts. The United States constitutes an “axis of disobedience” along with North Korea and Saddam-era Iraq.
Those are the views of the man on track to become one of the US government’s top lawyers: Harold Koh.
President Obama has nominated Koh — until last week the dean of Yale Law School — to be the State Department’s legal adviser. In that job, Koh would forge a wide range of international agreements on issues from trade to arms control, and help represent our country in such places as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.
It’s a job where you want a strong defender of America’s sovereignty. But that’s not Koh. He’s a fan of “transnational legal process,” arguing that the distinctions between US and international law should vanish.
What would this look like in a practical sense? Well, California voters have overruled their courts, which had imposed same-sex marriage on the state. Koh would like to see such matters go up the chain through federal courts — which, in turn, should look to the rest of the world. If Canada, the European Human Rights Commission and the United Nations all say gay marriage should be legal — well, then, it should be legal in California too, regardless of what the state’s voters and elected representatives might say.
He even believes judges should use this “logic” to strike down the death penalty, which is clearly permitted in the US Constitution.
The primacy of international legal “norms” applies even to treaties we reject. For example, Koh believes that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child — a problematic document that we haven’t ratified — should dictate the age at which individual US states can execute criminals. Got that? On issues ranging from affirmative action to the interrogation of terrorists, what the rest of the world says, goes.
Good god. As the rack of constitutional abuses in Obama’s nominees pile up, impeachment may be our only option left if we are to stop the globalist takeover of our country. When April 15th rolls around, we all need to be prepared with our Petition For A Redress Of Grievances. Should our calls be unheeded, suing to stop the unconstitutional excesses may well be our only option left short of a revolution.
This is a hostile legal, economic and social takeover of our country. If nominees like Mr. Koh and Mrs. Browner are allowed to stand, the legitimacy of the U.S. Government, as outlined by its founding document, the Constitution, is gone. We must assume the United Nations is in full control of our country if the legal ideas in these nominees are allowed to rule.
But that brings us to our next question: How exactly does one go about suing to enforce the Constitution on a President and has it ever been done in our past?