Harold Koh, Legal Appointment to the State Department, US Constitution is passe'! What!!

True Faith And Allegiance To The Constitution What Is And Is Not Necessary In A State Department Legal Adviser By OLIVER NORTH, For The Bulletin Wednesday, May 20, 2009 It is said that there are two kinds of lawyers: those who know the law and those who know the judge. And then there is Harold Koh, the man who is likely to be the next legal adviser to the State Department. Mr. Koh most recently served as dean of the Yale Law School and before that as assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor in the Clinton administration. He is a prolific author and a legal activist of the left. Earlier this week, his nomination to be Foggy Bottom’s barrister was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 12-5. His pending appointment has received scant attention from the media or the senators who will decide his fate. It deserves a closer look. The position of State Department legal adviser is unique. The person holding it helps formulate and implement U.S. foreign policy, advises the Justice Department on cases with international implications, influences U.S. positions on issues considered by international bodies, represents the U.S. at treaty negotiations and international conferences, and has input into the drafting of Security Council resolutions and the interpretations of treaties. Mr. Koh’s record deserves more scrutiny because he is not just an attorney who knows the law; he is an activist lawyer who knows what he wants the law to be. From all he has said and written, it is apparent that Mr. Koh wants U.S. jurisprudence to be shaped by international law, European courts, foreign governments and international organizations, such as the United Nations. Mr. Koh puts himself in the “transnationalist” camp of legal practitioners, which he describes as those who “believe in and promote the blending of international and domestic law.” He wrote, “Transnationalists believe that U.S. courts can and should use their interpretive powers to promote the development of a global legal system.” Though I never have been a supporter of the death penalty, I also believe that American citizens ought to be the ones who decide whether it is appropriate in this country. It certainly is not a matter to be decided by those in other countries. Mr. Koh, however, sides with foreigners. In a 2002 essay arguing against the death penalty, he wrote: “We do not currently pay decent respect to the opinions of humankind in our administration of the death penalty. For that reason, the death penalty should, in time, be declared in violation of the Eighth Amendment.” According to Mr. Koh, the only opinions in “humankind” that matter are those of non-Americans in the enlightened states where the death penalty no longer is considered an appropriate application of justice for those who commit heinous crimes. In the Koh universe, if the Europeans are opposed to it, we should render it unconstitutional. That kind of thinking is also evident in his opinion of the Second Amendment. “What kind of global gun control regime could we and should we try to build?” Mr. Koh asked in an essay titled “A World Drowning in Guns.” He urged “a global regulatory” scheme prohibiting the ownership of firearms could be achieved through a “process whereby rules negotiated among governments at a horizontal, intergovernmental level and interpreted through the interaction of transnational actors in these law-declaring fora are brought down vertically into the domestic law of each participating country —‘brought home’ if you will —and internalized into the domestic statutes, executive practice, and judicial systems of those participating nations.” In short, that means that U.S. law — constitutional or otherwise — must be amended or revised to comport with international standards. Presumably, the same concept would apply to not only our Second Amendment but also U.S. federal and state laws pertaining to abortion, same-sex marriage, pornography, drug use, private property rights and child molestation. In the Koh legal universe, those issues should be debated in the United Nations’ numerous institutions and commissions. Then nongovernmental organizations from around the globe will opine, a U.N. body will issue a report, and the U.S. Congress and state legislatures in the U.S. will be given a deadline within which to pass conforming legislation. The will of the American people will no longer matter if it is contrary to that of the “world community.” The Koh perspective on national security is equally alarming. In October 2002 —after Congress already had authorized the use of force against Iraq — he wrote in the Hartford Courant: “I believe … that it would be a mistake for our country to attack Iraq without explicit United Nations authorization … (because) such an attack would violate international law.” Because the U.S. did not seek or obtain U.N. “permission” before liberating Iraq, Mr. Koh included the U.S. — along with Iraq and North Korea —in what he described as an “axis of disobedience.” In another time, this kind of record would disqualify any aspirant for an office requiring confirmation by the U.S. Senate. But these are indeed different times. Perhaps the senators who vote to affirm Mr. Koh’s appointment can also waive the requirement that he “solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” Oliver North is a syndicated columnist.

Replies

Dave Wallace June 6, 2009 at 3:11am

I loved Newt this evening at the Red,White, & Blue dinner! and I paraphrase, I am not a citizen of the World, I am not a Citizen of Cuba, I am not a citizen of Mguabe's Zimbabwe, or of Russia, I am a citizen of the United States! I will not give up the gift that was bestowed upon me in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence! We the People! and the unalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness! We are not citizens of a Thug dictatorship, or a Oligarchy, We are all citizens of the United States of America!
Dave Wallace May 29, 2009 at 12:48pm

bullet points: Harold Koh

We have now in the United Nations, many Dictator Governments, and NON- Democratically Elected Regimes, with the name Democratic ...., many of these countries that don't have a system of juris prudence that remotely resemble that of a noble state, yet the Laws of our country will be superceded by that body!

Radical Trans National!
Import Foreign Law Practices
Social Human Rights Activism
Same Sex Marriage Advocacy
Comparable Worth Advocacy (not Free Market)
UN Directives Binding in US Courts and US "Best Interest" Foreign Policy Decisions

This Yale Law School Dean will be an Advocate for Social Justice not the Rule of Law!

This reply was deleted.

Replies

Note: this page contains paid content.

Note: this page contains paid content.

Note: this page contains paid content.

Note: this page contains paid content.

Note: this page contains paid content.

Note: this page contains paid content.

Note: this page contains paid content.

Note: this page contains paid content.