what should be the role of foreign  and international law in the U.S. Supreme Court decisions?
94048
US Supreme court decisions should be based on interpretaion of US law and foreign and international law have no place. Decisions should be based on precedence and current law. By going outside of our laws, they are effectively "creating" new laws.
452604
All I know is most international students studying law in the US get an LL.M.  \n\nYour question is a little vague.... but studying the law of a completely different country might not help you too much (besides adding to your analytical reasoning skills).
844823
It is extremely important in guiding decisions of judges from that jurisdiction.
104067
Yes, if the US court has "personal jurisdiction" over that person or their assets.  If the person entered a contract in the US or injured someone in the US, a US court would likely have jurisdiction.  Sometimes a US court does not have jurisdiction over a foreign national.  If the foreign national does not live in the US and has no "minimum contacts" with the US, the court will find that it does NOT have jurisdiction.  \n\nSpecial rules to jurisdiction apply in antitrust cases (the effect on the US economy is part of the test for jurisdiction).
168235
U.S. Supreme Court\nHAMMER v. DAGENHART\n 247 U.S. 251 (1918)\nDecided June 3, 1918.\n\nMr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court. \nA bill was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina by a father in his own behalf and as next friend of his two minor sons, one under the age of fourteen years and the other between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years, employes in a cotton mill at Charlotte, North Carolina, to enjoin the enforcement of the act of Congress intended to prevent interstate commerce in the products of child labor. Act Sept. 1, 1916, 39 Stat. 675.... \nThe attack upon the act rests upon three propositions: First: It is not a regulation of interstate and foreign commerce; second: It contravenes the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution; third: It conflicts with the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. \nThe controlling question for decision is: Is it within the authority of Congress in regulating commerce among the states to prohibit the transportation in interstate commerce of manufactured goods, the product of a factory in which, within thirty days prior to their removal therefrom, children under the age of fourteen have been employed or permitted to work, or children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years have been employed or permitted to work more than eight hours in any day, or more than six days in any week, or after the hour of 7 o'clock p. m., or before the hour of 6 o'clock a. m.? \nThe power essential to the passage of this act, the government contends, is found in the commerce clause of the Constitution which authorizes Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states. \nIn Gibbons v. Ogdon, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for this court, and defining the extent and nature of the commerce power, said, 'It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed.' In other words, the power is one to control the means by which commerce is carried on, which is directly the contrary of the assumed right to forbid commerce from moving and thus destroying it as to particular commodities. But it is insisted that adjudged cases in this court establish the doctrine that the power to regulate given to Congress incidentally includes the authority to prohibit the movement of ordinary commodities and therefore that the subject is not open for discussion. The cases demonstrate the contrary. They rest upon the character of the particular subjects dealt with and the fact that the scope of governmental authority, state or national, possessed over them is such that the authority to prohibit is as to them but the exertion of the power to regulate.... \nIn each of these instances the use of interstate transportation was necessary to the accomplishment of harmful results. In other words, although the power over interstate transportation was to regulate, that could only be accomplished by prohibiting the use of the facilities of interstate commerce to effect the evil intended. \nThis element is wanting in the present case. The thing intended to be accomplished by this statute is the denial of the facilities of interstate commerce to those manufacturers in the states who employ children within the prohibited ages. The act in its effect does not regulate transportation among the states, but aims to standardize the ages at which children may be employed in mining and manufacturing within the states. The goods shipped are of themselves harmless. The act permits them to be freely shipped after thirty days from the time of their removal from the factory. When offered for shipment, and before transportation begins, the labor of their production is over, and the mere fact that they were intended for interstate commerce transportation does not make their production subject to federal control under the commerce power. \nCommerce 'consists of intercourse and traffic ... and includes the transportation
478985
The United States must abide by laws that govern such things as international trade and human rights.  The United States, as is with every other nation, is not required to abide by the edicts passed by the United Nations.  \n\nIf they elect not to abide by a law that it feels is unfair or against the United States' interests they can refuse to uphold that law.  The consequences could include cooled relationships with other countries, embargos and even U N sanctioned war.
70834
The Supreme Court is independent because a justice can serve for life.  President Bush indicated before he was elected that he would place "strict constructionists" on the court who would decide cases on the merits of the Law only after considering all the facts.\n\nThe fact remains that the country has many issues that could be clarified by new laws.  one good example is obortion, whether you favor or oppose it.  The truth is that the issues divides the country regardless of party affiliation and is highly polarizing.  Therefore, it is impossible for Congress to pass any law that resolves the issue and the Constitution can not be amended for the same reason.  There aren't enough votes on either sidebut more than enough votes to stop the "wrong" decision by the other side.  Because of a failure of the Congress to pass laws, some expect the Supreme Court to take up the slack and legislate from the bench.  That would be a violation of the separation of powers for the three branches of government.  Therefore, regardless of his/her own beliefs, Supreme Court justices must set aside any personal views (one way or the other) and determine based on the arguments they hear and the briefs they read and a study of past decisions, who should win any particular case.  During recent hearings for Supreme Court nonimees, I heard no Politician blame himeself for failing to pass clear laws on any important issue.  Many had to be left vague to even get through Congress.\n\nLet's hope the Supreme Court remains above politics, even if different views are strongly held.  If we don't have the rule of law we have nothing.
553496
None! The Constitution has no provisions on the matter. As to previous poster your refering to the rule for Senators & President. Not the Justices....
996981
The US government's foreign policy dictates that democracy be spread around the world.  The World Court did try and hold the US for war crimes.  The US told the world court to 'stick it'.  I believe it was Colin Powell they wanted to try.\n\nIf you don't like democracy.  Good for you.  Just stay out of the US.  Thank you.
1001269
yes , as they are international laws
227825
International Law was drafted primarily by the victors of WWII, thus leaving out many civilizations and cultures.\n\n20% of Earths Population, the Muslims for Instance, had no say in drafting initial international law.\n\nSome large Asian countries too were not participants in drafting it either. So a law that is drafter only by a selected few, will tilt and collapse eventualy unless remedied by an inviation for equality and justice in all international dealings.
25724
I think it's better for you to stick with the original question.  Many people in many countries, like China or Sudan, suffer real religious persecution, for instance, and do not have access to our legal system.  The United States simply protected individual liberties better than any country in the world.\n\nThat said, Michael Newdow's rights have not been violated.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly articulated "standing" requirements for plaintiffs, which means that the plaintiff has a "case or controversy" under Article III of the Constitution, and the federal court system is authorized to hear that "case or controversy."\n\nSix principles have been repeatedly articulated by the Court in cases like Valley Forge. Three are constitutional: the plaintiff must have and injury in fact (actual or threatened, and imminent); the harm caused must be fairly traceable to the conduct; and a favorable court decision will lead to redress.  Three are prudential: no third-party standing is permitted on concern of the vigor of the litigations; no generalized grievances will be heard, since equal harm is dispersed among population; and the harm must occur within the "zone of interests" of the plaintiff.\n\nThe Lujan case suggested that the "generalized grievances" standard is more of a constitutional than prudential claim, and it appears that Newdow's claim falls under that prong of the test.  Nevertheless, under contemporary standing doctrine, Newdow's does not have a "concrete and particularized injury," but only a "general grievance" as an offended bystander.
714153
Good question.\n\nMost often international law does not in fact conflict with domestic law. After all, treaties (which incorporate or codify much -- but far from all -- international law) are ratified and (in some countries, like Britain, that are "dualist" countries and where this is necessary) specifically made the object of an implementing law.\n\n(The USA is a "monist" country where only ratification by the Senate is necessary. But for political reasons most major treaties are today legislated into effect.)\n\nSome examples of non-legislated, non-treaty rules universally accepted: \n\n(1) whether a person is a national (citizen) of a country is solely a matter for that other country to say. (There have been very few exceptions to this, chiefly involving the Nuremberg laws taking away German citizenship from Jews in the 1930s; and a couple of cases involving decolonization.)\n\n(2) national territory includes the sky above a country, but not outer space. And the sea, out to a limit of X miles (where X has historically varied; and economic and fisheries zones have been created in recent decades). \n\n(3) no state should meddle in the internal affairs of another (here, of course, the problem is defining "internal").\n\nOften states do ignore, or repudiate, international law as accepted by most other states. And many states are hypocritical about international law. One good example is the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling on US invasion of Nicaragua. The USA walked out of the court, in an act that has forever shamed it. Another US embarrassment (and conflict) is between the ICJ ruling on the rights of arrested persons and prisoners to contact a consular officer of their country. The ICJ ordered a stay of execution where the US violated this rule (actually a treaty right) and the US Supreme Court permitted such executions to take place.\n\nSometimes international law is observed only by reason of political and diplomatic convenience -- or embarrassment: http://www.uniset.ca/other/news/wp_ronaldanderson.html (US military deserter seized in Canada and forced back to the USA by US immigration officers; later released by order of Secretary of State Kissinger)\n\nAs international law changes over time -- human rights law is a good example, and it's not understood the same way everywhere, Muslim countries being an example: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/links/islam.html -- there is often disagreement as to what it is. International law requires consensus, and comes from long usage and acceptance, from treaties, UN and ICJ decisions, and even from consistent findings of domestic courts in many countries, and from regional courts such as the European Court of Human Rights.\n\nBe that as it may, few countries want to be seen as violating international law, at least consistently violating it, or being anarchic. That's why there are "show trials" in dictatorships, and elections too where the incumbent typically wins 99.9% of the vote. And why such countries holler so loudly about the sanctity and inviolability of their sovereignty, and about alleged "meddling" in their internal affairs. \n\nOn the latter point, the right and duty of other countries to intervene where there is genocide in process, and other severe violations of human rights, is new. And as we see in Darfur and saw in Rwanda and Bosnia, selective.
192002
The US generally recognizes foreign marriages and divorces...
494741
International humanitarian law (IHL), also known as the law of war, the laws and customs of war or the law of armed conflict, is the legal corpus "comprised of the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulations, as well as subsequent treaties, case law, and customary international law." [1] It defines the conduct and responsibilities of belligerent nations, neutral nations and individuals engaged in warfare, in relation to each other and to protected persons, usually meaning civilians.\n\nThe law is mandatory for nations bound by the appropriate treaties. There are also other customary unwritten rules of war, many of which were explored at the Nuremberg War Trials. By extension, they also define both the permissive rights of these powers as well as prohibitions on their conduct when dealing with irregular forces and non-signatories.
1154471
you know,\nthat's also my argument.\ni agree with you.\nthey should be given the option of\nbecoming a state or be treated as a foreign country
1127327
Yes, you can specialize in international law.  Different law schools offer different specializations.  If you get your JD in Ohio, you can take the bar in any state in the country -- if you pass, you're licensed to practice in that state.\n\nIN RESPONSE TO YOUR E-MAIL:  Law schools offering specializations in international law include, but are not limited to, University of Wisconsin, Cornell, Iowa, Syracus, Harvard, etc.