2 of 15

No

Write now Article Tools

In 2004, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke before over 1000 international lawyers who had membership in the American Society of International Law. He insisted that foreign legal materials should not be included in formal statements of judicial opinion. Definably, American Heritage Dictionary states, originalism is "the belief that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to the intent of those who composed and adopted it." There is no judge in these times who adheres to originalism with more steadfastness than Scalia. Who views the Constitution of the United States of America as "unchanging. It is a rock to which the [government] is anchored."

In direct opposition to originalism is a theoretical interpretation - termed "living Constitution" - which infers that Constitutional law is dynamic. Where progress in American society becomes a consideration that should help guide judicial interpretation. And opinions found in legal documents of international law may be cited. Individual Supreme Court judges occasionally adduce the rulings of foreign courts in their conclusions - including such politically polarizing issues as the death penalty for young criminals, affirmative action and civil rights for homosexuals.

In 2004, such citations by liberal Supreme Court Justices angered several Republican congressmen. Representative Tom Feeney introduced a "resolution to express the opposition of Congress to citation of foreign law by federal judges," according to Legal Times.

In 2005, Justice Breyer announced he would declare unconstitutional the execution of juveniles convicted of murder based partly on the considerable amount of international opinion against such a penalty. Contradictively, Breyer considers the Supreme Court ruling over abortion as "settled law", though most of the international community has outlawed the practice. In a Associated Press report from that year, Justice Breyer stated that "international opinion can be relevant in determining fundamental freedoms in a more global society."

In a debate with Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, Scalia noted that elements of German and Swiss law - along with British legal terms - could be found in the written Constitution. He then insisted that judgments of international law should not support the actual interpretation of American Constitutional law. This contrast distinguishes the work of Congress from the work of the Court, whereas Congress may refer to existing foreign legislation when drafting a bill.

At a confirmation hearing in 2006, Justice Alito expressed how the original aim of the Bill of Rights was to provide citizens with privileges that were unique to the world community. And how he did not think it was "appropriate to look to foreign law" for the interpretation of the Constitution.

Documents of international and foreign legal decisions should not be cited by Supreme Court judges. The sole responsibility of such justices is to interpret the Constitution. Through which the constitutionality of a legal issue is clarified in the light of the established Constitution alone, which has prevailed for two centuries - through two world wars.

Learn more about this author, Nikolaus Federmann.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Should international law have a significant effect on Supreme Court decisions??
We want to hear your view. Write now!