![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fog/Mist ~ High: 59°F ~ Low: 41°F |
|
Constitutional Flagellation
Posted Tuesday, April 28, 2009, at 12:51 PM<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>
On March 23rd, President Obama nominated Harold Hongju Koh to be the top legal adviser at the State Department. As such he will travel the world and will develop and approve the language of any agreements the US makes with any foreign government. Also he will issue legal opinions interpreting any present treaty or agreement.
Mr. Koh is, at present, Dean of the Yale University Law School. I don't know why, as important as this position is, the press has not seen it proper to inform the populace of Mr. Koh ideas and writings. Mr. Koh is by his own words a "transnationist" and an "internationalist." Mr. Koh has written several law review articles espousing his position of rejection of American sovereignty and the Constitution. He views the 192 nations of the world as a globalized world subservient to transnational law! Mr. Koh espouses the notion that foreign law trumps the Constitution on many issues! He has written the Supreme Court should construe the Constitution in light of foreign and international law. He believes American Courts should honor and apply the laws of other nations! Transnationalism at its ultimate visualizes the erasure of nations/states boundaries and creating a unified world government. Under such a régime Koh support the notion of a "judicial oligarchy" to rule the world. I can only guess where he would be. Maybe inside this oligarchy? There you have it. A President who thinks the Supreme Court should "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution." How can one value a person's character who speaks this statement, nominates Koh and has taken the oath of office to uphold the Constitution. Sworn on a bible no less! I have never been a subscriber to any of the various "conspiracy theories" that raise their heads from time to time referencing several different issues, but actions such as this nomination of Koh and placing him in a powerful, powerful position scares the hell out of me. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Near lifelong resident of Bedford County. Will comment on the issues of the day in, hopefully a cogent and certainly an honest manner. Will propose discussions not usually fully addressed in the mainstream media.
Hot topics Election 2010(0 ~ 3:57 PM, Nov 18)
Gambling Sentence
Wartrace Liquor
Gambling Update
Gambling Article
|
![[Feed icon]](http://www.t-g.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Coming from a man who thought there were 58 states in the U.S. and believes that rehiring Clinton era retreads is somehow change- it doesn't surprise me.
You have to understand Obama is the first illegitimate born president we've ever had. Because of his absentee father, he overcompensates by trying to make everyone like him. This gives him a feeling of acceptance he never got from his father. I would further point to the "Greek columns" and "office of the president elect" as more signs of his megalomania.
Actually, since Gerald Ford was adopted, it's probably safe to say his birth was illegitimate. not that I see it as relevant in any way.
Also, according to snopes.com, who I trust a lot more than FOX, the Obamas were married when he was born.
Again, I don't see it as relevant. Some others who were born illegitimately include Alexander Hamilton, Erasmus, Thomas Paine, T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia)and Leonardo Da Vinci.
But Obama's father was already married to who knows how many other women, making the marriage to Obama's mother illegal and therefore void. But if you can believe his grandmother, who said she was present when he was born in Kenya, his birth may be legitimate after all. ;-)
...and creating a unified world government.
Posted by Carl McClanahan on Tuesday, April 28, 2009, at 12:51 PM
It should not come as such a suprise.
The season of time is ripe for this.
The earlier G20 summit meetings covered the core issues of the "one money system".
Carl:
Here a quote from the New York Times, web site, April 14
On April 3, former Bush Solicitor General (and the Bush v. Gore winning lawyer) Ted Olsen endorsed Koh in an interview with Greg Sargent at the Plum Line. "The President and the Secretary of State are entitled to have who they want as their legal adviser," Olson said. "I have the greatest respect for Harold Koh. He's a brilliant scholar and a man of great integrity."
Carl:
Ken Starr, remember him?, has also endorsed Koh. This is from the Yale Daily News, April 13.
"In a speech at Yale Law School on Thursday, conservative icon Kenneth Starr announced his support for Koh before an audience of about 95 students and professors, two people in attendance said."
Grit......Being in a Republican Administration does not make one immune to bouts of idiotsy. The highly respected Heritage Foundation and many other respected news outlets I will trust to trump a couple of bureaucrats. My blog was not about who respected Koh, but rather his positions by his own admission. Please point out where I said something wrong or misrepresented his positions. Also I would like to hear your thoughts on why, after nearly 5 weeks, his nomination has not been reported nor he vetted by the mainstream press.
Carl:
This is part of a commentary titled "Confirm Harold Koh" from Ron Farrrow, Forbes Magazine, April 28, 2009.
"To the disappointment of his excitable critics, Koh has never suggested the subordination of the American legal system to foreign powers. He has championed respect for our obligations under treaties to which the U.S. has explicitly signed. He views international legal sources as a valid--but not binding--source of inspiration and perspective for U.S. courts.
The use of such nonbinding sources to bolster legal arguments is a central and uncontroversial tenet of the American judicial process: Law review articles and other academic sources are a lynchpin of the opinions of courts everywhere; current Chief Justice John Roberts has even cited a Bob Dylan song.
Moreover, and too frequently overlooked in the frisson of recent weeks, Koh's work as a transnationalist has been more descriptive than prescriptive. He has devoted a portion of his well-respected body of publications to chronicling the historical reality that U.S. judges have been citing international legal sources for generations."
Carl:
Probably the best debunking of the Koh myths is from Chris Borgen who writes for Opinio Juris; here is the link for his March 31 piece.
http://opiniojuris.org/2009/03/31/pro-ko...
I will state that this is the level of understanding of the law that both Ken Starr and Ted Olsen have; they are probably in agreement with Borgen, that is probably why they endorsed Koh.
Grit...I understand the naming of sources you cite, but I can cite as many or more that take issue with the conclusions you seem to espouse. I have no problem with the notion that Koh is brilliant. So too were Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Machiavelli. His brilliance is not the issue. His intentions and probable actions are. I can cite quotes from his writings that support my thesis.