Tag Archives: unconstitutional

Anchor Babies and Foreign Laws

In her column of 8/18/2010, Ann coulter makes yet another obzervation regarding liberal hypocrisy.

Liberals/progressives/leftists in this country constantly try to get U.S. courts to make decisions based not on U.S. law, but on foreign law. There is, however, one notable exception: anchor babies.

But when it comes to anchor babies, The New York Times and the entire Democratic establishment plug their ears and hum rather than consider foreign laws on citizenship. (For more on this, see “Mexican immigration law versus U.S. immigration law.”)

Needless to say, America is the only developed nation that allows illegal aliens to gain full citizenship for their children merely by dropping them on U.S. soil.

The article goes on to cite the immigration policies of Sweden (usually a leftist’s dream), Britain, and Canada. Looks like we are the only ones to allow anchor babies. Of course, the left would argue that the 14th Amendment causes that, but the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not require that interpretation.

Anyway, the idea of using foreign laws to influence American court decisions has always been repulsive to me. Foreign laws are made by foreign leaders using foreign methods to meet foreign needs. While there are certainly elements common to all humanity, there are also regional variations based on geography, culture, and other factors that cannot allow a cookie-cutter mentality toward shaping laws. This applies within the 50 United States. What works in Maine might not necessarily work in Arizona. It applies even more so from one country to another. Foreign laws are also made by foreign legislatures whose methods might be illegal in the U.S. We are bound by our constitution, not foreign constitutions.

Foreign law might work for foreign countries, but it often goes against our laws, our traditions, our culture, our Constitution, and our liberty. If people want to adopt an idea from another country, let them put it before the Congress, or the state legislatures. Let our legislators study them, debate them, and modify them as necessary to meet our needs. Using foreign ideas to influence American court decisions thus bypassing the people’s elected representatives is a subversion of the sovereignty of the people and is (in my mind) close to treason.

Besides, it just doesn’t fit. The culture, economies, people, traditions, and constitutions of other countries are sufficiently different from ours to render them functionally incompatible. Trying to use foreign law to render court decisions in the U.S. is like trying to play Monopoly using the rules from Risk.

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under politics

What is “historic”?

I’m sick and tired of hearing people blather on and on about how “historic” the health care takeover is. Historic doesn’t mean good.

9/11 was historic.
Pearl Harbor was historic.
Kristallnacht was historic.
the Alamo was historic.

That doesn’t mean they were good.

Passing something this blatantly unconstitutional and tyrannical against incredible public opposition is certainly historic. That doesn’t mean that this is a good thing.

1 Comment

Filed under politics, Uncategorized

H.R. 3200 (the healthcare bill) Is Unconstitutional Ex Post Facto Law.

 “Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.”    – excerpt from H.R. 3200 (the healthcare bill)

Correct me if I’m reading this wrong, but doesn’t that back date the law’s effectiveness to January 1, 2009?  Let’s say I took out a policy on February 1, 2009. If this bill becomes law, would it render my policy illegal?

“No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” – U.S. Constitution: Article 1, Section 9.  An ex post facto law is a retroactive law, that is, one that makes something illegal before the law was passed.

Could someone explain to me how this is not an unconstitutional ex post facto law? If my reading of the bill is correct, it would render any policy made on or after January 1, 2009 null and void after the fact.

2 Comments

Filed under politics