Should foreign law be a consideration in American law? Alliance Defense Fund put together the following video that discusses this crucial question:
There is no situation, not criminal, not legal, nor moral where foreign precedence would be necessary for ruling in an American court of law . . . unless you are a breathingist. Breathingist groups, such as the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, already having stretched the Constitution as far as it will go, have turned to foreign courts to bludgeon American culture to best fit their humanist pipe dream of a moral-free country.
The video discusses the Massachusetts case, Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health , in which the court quotes from and rules on the basis of a Canadian ruling that re-defines marriage:
We face a problem similar to one that recently confronted the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the highest court of that Canadian province, when it considered the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage ban under Canada’s Federal Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). Canada, like the United States, adopted the common law of England that civil marriage is “the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.” In holding that the limitation of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the Charter, the Court of Appeal refined the common-law meaning of marriage. We concur with this remedy, which is entirely consonant with established principles of jurisprudence empowering a court to refine a common-law principle in light of evolving constitutional standards.
In other words, courts must be breathingists. When courts refine even common-law marriage at the state level, it is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Resistance is not coming from a jurisdictional stance. It is coming from a moral approach. Constitutionally speaking, “evolving standards” is an oxymoron. While I am certain the Founders knew times would change, I do not believe they intended for new laws to be created in the courts. That is what the legislative process is for.
Let’s briefly look at the Left’s “Big Three” areas of taking moral issues and shaping them into political ones so that courts can “refine” them. First, separation of church and state, nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, is commonly referred to as a Constitutional right by liberals. Second, abortion, saw proponents unconstitutionally change the right to choice to include a “fetus,” which was downgraded in noun status from a person to a thing. Finally, same-sex marriage, which seeks to create additional special rights for homosexuals to be married.
The Left has long known that they will not achieve their agenda of same-sex marriage, baby-killing, and an expunging of religion through legislation alone. Their scheme requires the courts to create new laws. This explains the severe opposition to conservative, Supreme Court justices Roberts and Alito who are known for their remarkable ability to interpret the Constitution, not create new laws. But it should also open the eyes of Americans to the left’s regime, and in order to prevent the courts from succeeding, the answer is to vote conservative politicians into office at all levels in order to control the process of nominating judges.