June 17, 2013
June 12, 2013
Stephanie Hanes: Little girls or little women? The Disney princess effect
Fred Weir: In tweak to US, Russia would 'consider' asylum for Snowden
June 10, 2013
The Kosher Gourmet by Anjali Prasertong: A tart filling so good it might not make it to the crust
June 5, 2013
John Rosemond: Mom, Dad: Talk More and listen less
Egypt court sentences 43 pro-democracy workers to prison
June 3, 2013
Molly Hennessy-Fiske: Military judge to consider letting Fort Hood shooting defendant represent himself
May 29, 2013
Andrew Connelly and Helene Bienvenu: The Little Synagogue that Refused to Die
May 24, 2013
Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb: When I didn't so 'humbly disagree'
May 22, 2013
They launched the 'Arab Spring' but now yearn for the good old days of a strongman
May 20, 2013
Richard A. Serrano: Is Meir Kahane's assassin now a changed man?
Genetic copies of living people from embryos no longer science fiction
Jewz in the Newz by Nate Bloom :
The Kosher Gourmet by Cathy Pollak:
Jews Inducted into Rock Hall of Fame; Anton Yelchin co-stars in New "Trek" film; Kutcher (but not Kunis) visits Israel; Jewish TV Star Praises Jewish Rap Star
WARNING: This WALNUT CAKE WITH PRALINE FROSTING, perfect for afternoon coffee, is addicting
Jewish World Review
Oct. 16, 2007
/ 4 Mar-Cheshvan
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
I am not a lawyer. But you don't need to be one to recognize a legal train-wreck in the making. And that is what recent events portend if the U.S. Senate agrees to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty or LOST) in the next few weeks.
Consider two ominous indicators of trouble ahead. The first was evident in the lengthy discussion justices of the U.S. Supreme Court had last week during their consideration of a Texas court case in which "universal jurisprudence" aspires to trump American law. As the brilliant prosecutor-turned-essayist, Andrew McCarthy, put it in Human Events, the matter before the Supremes in Medellin v. Texas is the following:
"Mexico sued the United States in the World Court and (surprise) won by a vote of 14-1 with international jurists, who hail from such human-rights bulwarks as China, Egypt and Sierra Leone, ruling that the United States had treated its detainees shabbily. As if this weren't rich enough, the tribunal further presumed to order the United States to review and reconsider the convictions and sentences of 51 Mexican nationals on death row."
In other words, the stacked deck International Court of Justice (a k a World Court) sought to override laws involving the death penalty democratically adopted by the people of Texas.
Even The Washington Post found the spectacle of President Bush aligning himself with the transnationalists in this case to be an unacceptable derogation of U.S. sovereignty. In an Oct. 11 editorial, the paper declared, "The justices should again reaffirm the supremacy of U.S. courts to decide questions of U.S. law, including treaties." The editorial concluded with the wishful thought: "With any luck, the country won't soon have to face another constitutional mess of this type."
The second straw in the wind came in the form of an Oct. 14 op-ed in The Washington Times by Tom Donahue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In it, he appealed to the Supreme Court to resolve punitive damages litigation arising from the devastating 1989 oil spill in Alaska caused when the Exxon Valdez ran aground. Mr. Donahue argues that, "The Supreme Court should take the case to settle and reaffirm the longstanding law of the sea" on a question of corporate responsibility for a ship captain's conduct. Otherwise, "Plaintiffs' lawyers will pocket millions, perhaps even billions of dollars. The losing defendants, of course, would have to pass their losses on to customers in the form of higher prices. Jobs losses might well follow, pension funds and individual workers who owned the company's stock could take a hit and America's competitiveness would suffer in the global marketplace. It is the Supreme Court's responsibility to prevent that."
These commentaries have two things in common. (1) The sources are both on the record in support of the Law of the Sea Treaty. And (2) if the United States becomes a party to LOST, the problems they seek to alleviate will become much, much worse.
After all, the treaty identifies the World Court as one of four "arbitral tribunals" that must be used to resolve disputes under LOST. Just as in the Medellin case, the deck will be stacked against the United States in all of these panels. Worse, the accord dictates their rulings are binding and final.
In other words, Medellin may indeed prove to be the "last time" the Supreme Court confronts such a "constitutional mess" but only because its right to do so will be permanently circumscribed by the Law of the Sea Treaty. And, far from being able to render definitive judgments on law of the sea matters like those raised by the Exxon Valdez case, our justices hereafter may be reduced to serving as little more than bailiffs for their international betters, enforcing edicts handed down from Hamburg or The Hague.
One would hope even laymen in the U.S. Senate, to say nothing of the attorneys who populate the membership of its Judiciary Committee, would want to consider carefully such implications of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
For that matter, one would expect those who serve on the Senate's armed services, intelligence, homeland security, finance, energy and environment committees to want to do the same if for no other reason, to understand how their respective jurisdictions will be diminished by this accord.
Sadly, as of this writing, not one of these committees has indicated a willingness to perform due diligence on LOST. Such behavior is all the more irresponsible in the face of evidence uncovered by the intrepid Cliff Kincaid of America's Survival: Environmental and other plaintiffs' lawyers are preparing precisely the sorts of suits of which Tom Donahue warns for the day when the U.S. accedes to the Treaty and can be targeted (http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/burns.pdf). Only, at that point, the Supreme Court will no longer be "responsible for preventing that."
As with Medellin, President Bush has aligned himself with the transnationalists on the Law of the Sea Treaty. Now it is up to the American people to ensure that our government particularly our legislature and our courts continue exclusively to rule us, in accountable ways pursuant to our republican constitution. We must start by ensuring that our senators do their homework on LOST and then reject its ratification.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. heads the Center for Security Policy. Comments by clicking here.
BUY FRANK'S LATEST
"War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World"
America has been at war for years, but until now, it has not been clear with whom or precisely for what. And we have not been using the full resources we need to win.
With the publication of War Footing, lead-authored by Frank Gaffney, it not only becomes clear who the enemy is and how high the stakes are, but also exactly how we can prevail.
War Footing shows that we are engaged in nothing less than a War for the Free World. This is a fight to the death with Islamofascists, Muslim extremists driven by a totalitarian political ideology that, like Nazism or Communism before it, is determined to destroy freedom and the people who love it. Sales help fund JWR.
© 2006, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Richard Z. Chesnoff
Frank J. Gaffney
Victor Davis Hanson
A. Barton Hinkle
Judge A. Napolitano
Cokie & Steve Roberts
Debra J. Saunders
J. D. Crowe
David Ray Skinner
Ask Doctor K