Ignoring International Law

There is a  bizarre  idea in leftist circles that U.S. judges should apply the standards of “International Law.” To U.S. cases. From Jonathan Adler via Instapundit:

For example, Dean Harold Koh of Yale Law School, mentioned as a possible Kerry Supreme Court nominee, has supported the idea that U.S. courts should expansively apply international legal precedents without the authorization of the president and Congress.

There is one simple reason why this is  contrary  to everything America stands for. American political theory rest on the idea that all just law arises from the formally expressed will of the people. If at some stage of its development, the people did not vote on a law, the law has no validity. Even the Constitution itself was originally voted on and by design we can vote to amend it as we wish. How, then, can a U.S. judge  legitimately  use a foreign concept for which the American voters have never cast ballots? By what legal theory are free people bound by the  decisions  of others in which they have no say?  Arguing that judges can impose foreign standards against the will of America voters simply tosses overboard the founding justification for American justice that people should only be governed by law to which they consent.  

Sadly, this is just another symptom of the American Left’s  progressive  (pun intended)  abandonment  of the American concept of governance in favor of the more authoritarian European model. Incapable of  conceiving  of their own capacity for error and utterly convinced of their own moral rectitude, they have no intellectual or moral issues with using any means necessary to impose their will upon their fellow citizens. They decide what they want and then manufacture a means of getting it. Invoking some  vague  “international standard” lets them find the legal justification they want in the entrails of whatever monster of foreign law they want to slit open on that particular day. It’s not “international law” they wish to adopt but rather the sole authority to choose to decided what “international law” means on any particular day or in any particular circumstance.

The American Left is on a long, dark road.  

Don’t Be Preedy

While linking to a Megan McArdle comment  on a childish Matthew Yglesias post on bankers, Instapundit asks a question  that reveals a void in our language and world-models:

“DOES GREED MAKE YOU A BAD PERSON? What about greed for power, a trait exhibited by many of those who denounce greed for money? Which is worse?”

Why does Instapundit have to use the cumbersome phrase “greed for power” to describe a very common human behavior? Why do we have to describe the lust for power in terms of the lust for money?

Language can tell you a great deal about the world models held by those who speak the language. Specifically, if a language lacks a specific, neat word for a particular concept, it tells you that the people who speak the language don’t use the concept very often.  

What does it tell us that English and every other Western language have a single word to describe the destructive lust for money but that they lack a single word to describe the destructive lust for political power?

Read more

Bureaucratic Culture’s Penultimate Expression

fail owned pwned pictures
see more pwn and owned pictures

I thought at first this was a joke because I found it at the humor site Fail Blog. Unfortunately, the story turned out to be very true. The mind boggles at the thought of spending money to not only paint over a wall dedicated to graffiti (a wall which defeats the whole rebellious point of graffiti in the first place) but also to pay for investigating the “vandalism” of painting graffiti on a wall set aside for graffiti.  

This is a humorous manifestation of bureaucratic culture in which people begin to think of themselves as robots forced to blindly follow  their  bureaucratic programs even when those programs produce obviously nonsensical results. Other results of this culture (here, here) are tragic.  

Read more

Noble North Korea Celebrates Earth Hour Big Time!

Earth Hour was a world-wide event which let  conscientious  environmentalists symbolically vote for preserving the  environment  by turning off their lights for an entire hour. No one, however, went to the heroic lengths of North Korea. Just look at this  satellite  picture comparing the indifferent, environment-wrecking people of South Korea versus the caring, Gaia-nurturing people of North Korea.  

Wait, it gets even better…

Read more

Quote of the Day

Put together, these three assessments are devastating, even though Cohen has not caught on yet to the fact that Obama is not a reformer, and never has been one. Applebaum has the best description of the underlying fault; Clinton, Obama, and Pelosi are not living in the real world, a world in which nations have histories that can not be reset, constitutions and laws that can not be ignored, and financial problems that can not be solved simply by giving more power to the federal officials who did so much to create those problems.
 
One final, sobering thought: We are accustomed to discounting “campaign rhetoric”, accustomed to assuming that politicians do not believe much of what they say during a campaign. But we must, from time to time, consider the possibility, however unpleasant, that campaigners believe much of what they say. Clinton, Obama, and Pelosi may have believed the attacks they made on George W. Bush, who they depicted as both misinformed and misguided. That would explain why they seem to think that they can simply replace Bush and “reset” things to make them right.

Jim Miller