There was a recent exchange between Glenn Back and Law Professors Duncan Hollis and Chris Borgen. The topic was Harold Koh – one of Obama’s new appointees who has advocated using international law as a precedent for interpreting American law. Glenn Beck pointed out that if we cede our sovereingty to an international body, our Constitution is dead. Law professors Hollis and Borgen interjected, pointing out that Koh only advocated looking at decisions in other countries for educational expertise. Well, first off, America has been doing this for 233 years, I think we have our own educational expertise. Secondly, while Hollis and Borgen are probably right in the short-run, Beck is right in the long-run, which is what actually matters. Accepting Koh’s philosophy is like planing a seed, not giving a shot. If you give a shot to someone, it is a one time stimulant. If you plant a seed, it will grow and grow to something far bigger and harder to escape then what you had originally.
In other words, if we start using foreign law as an “educational basis,” we run the risk of allowing too much foreign law into our own, which would contribute to the decline of the American Constitution and the American sovereign nation. Koh advocates that we see ourselves not as a unique free nation, but as part of a global human rights movement. Koh may be reframing our law in order to further his anti-freedom agenda regarding gun rights. He has advocated a global regulatory agency to outlaw all firearms, something which international agencies from other countries who lack understanding in the gun issue as we do. Other countries have gotten better over time and good for them but America remains the first and the best. If we allow foreign influence into our law precedent than we are merely watering ourselves down. And besides, our Constitution was crafted by geniuses and we would do best to preserve it so we can enjoy such freedom as long as possible. If any manipulative interpretation is made, from foreign law or not, it spells our demise. A living Constitution is a dead Constitution.
while the U.S. constitution was written by geniuses, they were geniuses 233 years ago. it is an entirely different world now and, accordingly, entirely different issues you face.
i don’t think sticking to your guns here (pun intended) is the best approach. the decisions you make at home now affect the global population and should be made with that in mind. i don’t think ceding sovereignty to an international body is what anyone is suggesting (Beck has a penchant for the dramatic), but looking outside your box for interpretation and other approaches should not be seen as a bad thing or as a submission of sorts. the U.S. is a young country in human history.
a position of global superiority hasn’t worked for you in the past, why keep up the facade?
They were geniuses 233 years ago precisely because they had the foresight to see the same issues that we face today. The notion that “it’s an entirely different time, we have different issues,” is a falsehood which distracts us from preserving the timeless masterpiece that is the US Constitution. Freedom of Speech, Expression, Right to Bear Arms – these are timeless concepts. The Constitution was written in vague terms where the standards are flexible, but in most of the articles, it was written as a clear set of rules and guidelines intended to preserve liberty and security for all time.
Now, the US may be the youngest country, but it was the first of the modern democratic republics. Other countries have gotten better over time, but they are still lagging in some key areas, such as the Bill of Rights, which is treated with the reverence it should be here in America. Elsewhere it is more hastily discarded for convenience. It is precisely that which I do not want to see reflected upon the American system of justice.
Is the US Constitution perfect? Of course not, that’s why it comes with an amendment process. But its close enough that opening it to loose interpretations is more likely to bring it farther from perfect, not closer to it.