| | |
|
WenweiLaiFirstPaper 9 - 12 Jul 2010 - Main.WenweiLai
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | After 2002, suddenly justification is needed for the Court to cite foreign sources. | |
<
< | In the past, there was little scholastic discussion on this topic, and the Court seemed to have little problem with this question that has been resolved long ago. | >
> | In recent years, the use of foreign sources in Supreme Court decisions has become a hotly debated issue. After the Court in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) cited a European Court of Human Rights decision to overrule Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and strike down a Texan law banning sodomy, House Republicans even introduced a resolution stating that “foreign authorities should not be used at all for U.S. cases,” except in some special instances. In fact, the issue was discussed and largely resolved almost 200 years ago. In Evans v. Eaton (1822), Justice Story cited several English decisions (the ones made after Independence and thus not accepted into American law) in a patent case, drawing criticism from Justice Livingston’s dissent: “…we should be extremely cautious in adopting the rules which have been introduced into other countries, and under laws not in every respect like our own, however respectable the tribunals may be which may have prescribed those rules.” Later, in Pennock v. Dialogue (1829), Justice Story cited English decisions in another patent case, this time without any dissenting opinions. Since then, there had been no dispute on this issue for a long time. For example, in Bradwell v. State (1872), the Court held that women were not allowed to practice law, because this was unheard of in England. | | | | |
<
< | Starting from the Atkins decision in 2002, foreign sources would draw sharp criticism from the conservatives once they appear in any decisions. It also became a hotly debated issue in law review articles. | >
> | However, when the Court cited international sources in Atkins v. Virginia (2002) to declare executions of mentally retarded criminals unconstitutional, the conservatives argued heavily against anything that was not enshrined in the original meaning of the Eight Amendment, foreign sources included. Following the decision, various law review articles started debating this issue. All of a sudden, the dormant volcano erupted again. | | | The political context: the United States became more anti-international and leaned toward unilateralism. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |