Fedral wrote:The second part that you highlighted is the part I don't understand what the problem there is. (Although I'm not a lawyer and am not sure of the ramifications of that part. I wish joefromchicago were here to interpret for us.)
Your wish is my command!
As far as I can tell, the section that you reference would prohibit courts from relying upon any foreign law or sources when making decisions. As the text states:
In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than the constitutional law and English common law.
You're correct,
Fedral: this shouldn't be a problem. American courts are required to follow the Constitution, statutes, treaties, and binding judicial precedent. They are not typically required to follow any foreign law or precedent, since those laws have no force or validity here. Judges can, on the other hand, draw from any and all sources for guidance. For example, a judge may look at a foreign law to see how another jurisdiction handles a certain problem (just as an Illinois judge might look at a Wisconsin statute for guidance), but that foreign law does not
compel the judge to rule in a particular way. At most, foreign laws and precedents are
persuasive, not binding.
There is a segment of the political and legal community, however, that has become unduly alarmed at some supreme court decisions which, in its opinion, rely far too much on foreign legal precedents (for more, check
this link). Now, as I've mentioned, no foreign law or precedent is binding on any US court (except the decisions of foreign tribunals to which the US adheres as the result of treaties), and I've never seen a supreme court decision that has stated anything to the contrary. Nevertheless, there are some people who are particularly incensed about the supreme court even
mentioning foreign laws or precedents, and I suppose this proposed bill is their way of dealing with that "problem."