World Government: Not Yet
The post-modern Supreme Court has taken, again, a leadership role in public policy. This time they've decided that applying the death penalty to juveniles is "unconstitutional."
Now let's get something straight here: I don't think we should be executing minors. In fact, I'm not even sure the death penalty makes sense in an era of DNA testing and 25 levels of appeal.
But is the Supreme Court the government body to make this decision? Nine people divorced from accountability, however enlightened, can't consistently make sound public policy.
The larger issue here is not juvenile executions: they're very rare. What bothers me about the decision, much like abortion, is less its effect than its reasoning. Justice Kennedy cited "international opposition" as part of his assent. This is a very dangerous precedent.
Of course our government has to consider the effects of its policy on the world at large, but this is the sole responsibility of law makers and the executive branch. If the International Court of Justice rules that we have to provide social services to illegal immigrants, is it the role of the Supreme Court to force Arizona into compliance? No.
The only constitutional method for international compliance is the treaty. Treaties are signed by the executive, ratified by the Senate (by a two thirds margin, no less) and interpreted by the Judicial branch. That is, the Judicial branch gets the last (not final) opportunity to interpret our compliance with international law or precedent.
No, we're not ready for a world government. In fact, any broad, central government in a diverse society is destined to fail. Federalism (or international Federalism) is the key to governing diverse peoples. The day nine unaccountable citizens become a gateway for international governing of the U.S. is a scary day indeed.
Now let's get something straight here: I don't think we should be executing minors. In fact, I'm not even sure the death penalty makes sense in an era of DNA testing and 25 levels of appeal.
But is the Supreme Court the government body to make this decision? Nine people divorced from accountability, however enlightened, can't consistently make sound public policy.
The larger issue here is not juvenile executions: they're very rare. What bothers me about the decision, much like abortion, is less its effect than its reasoning. Justice Kennedy cited "international opposition" as part of his assent. This is a very dangerous precedent.
Of course our government has to consider the effects of its policy on the world at large, but this is the sole responsibility of law makers and the executive branch. If the International Court of Justice rules that we have to provide social services to illegal immigrants, is it the role of the Supreme Court to force Arizona into compliance? No.
The only constitutional method for international compliance is the treaty. Treaties are signed by the executive, ratified by the Senate (by a two thirds margin, no less) and interpreted by the Judicial branch. That is, the Judicial branch gets the last (not final) opportunity to interpret our compliance with international law or precedent.
No, we're not ready for a world government. In fact, any broad, central government in a diverse society is destined to fail. Federalism (or international Federalism) is the key to governing diverse peoples. The day nine unaccountable citizens become a gateway for international governing of the U.S. is a scary day indeed.
2 Comments:
I have to agree with you about the "international opinion" argument being legally unconvincing. There certainly is a difference between saying "national ethical views have changed, so the south can't have segregation" versus "international ethical views have changed, so the US can't execute minors." States are not under international jurisdiction, but they are under federal jurisdiction. There's no problem using international opinion as evidence of a changing environment, but to make it a central part of a legal argument is misguided.
By Tim McGuire, At 11:35 AM EST
I think we're pretty close on this issue, but I still feel like the purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret U.S. laws and the Constitution. The penumbra argument is weak.
By Ben Polidore, At 11:58 AM EST
Post a Comment
<< Home