Good to see that both Democrat and Republican politicians are sponsoring this bill. it cannot come sooner! wish our Cdn politicians would have same zeal for freedom of speech!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at June 26, 2008 7:33 AM

Like NYS's "Rachel's Law" this federal bill would protect American journalists from libel suits brought in foreign jurisdictions lacking the same free speech protections found in the U.S. Constitution.

Interesting, I thought that the U.S. Constitution in theory at least, granted "freedom of speech;" then why do you need this if that were true?

Even if this is passed, why should foreign jurisdictions honor it more that they would the already existing U.S. Constitution; especially if the U.S. government has already signed treaties that have the force of law which nullifies the Rachel law?

Furthermore, if this new law is passed would it "protect" only "American journalists?" In that case what would constitue an "American journalist" for these purposes?

What about "ordinary Amcerican citizens?" Are they protected also?

Finally, what else is attached to the Rachel laws in question and how would they impact existing legislation?

Lastly, we are NOT a democracy! We have always been a Representative REPUBLIC.

Ben Franklin even quipped that a "democracy" was nothing more than two wolves and a sheep arguing over what was going to be for lunch -- which is why he and the other founding fathers wanted a republic.

Posted by: witness at June 26, 2008 8:12 AM

"Free Speech Protection Act" is fine. I wish we could stop with the naming of important bills after crime victims, etc... I know these are honorifics, but it seems a dumbing down of legislation.

Posted by: Bingo at June 26, 2008 8:13 AM

I fail to see how this legislation has more force than the U.S. Constitution.

If the latter isn't honored and enforceable, why should this legislation be?

Posted by: witness at June 26, 2008 8:29 AM

They're showing unity and resolve and defending the 1st Amendmt. against watering down. Kind of like a preemptive strike. So calm down, people.

BTW, the 2nd Amendmt. is always available to protect the 1st Amendmt.

Posted by: Bingo at June 26, 2008 8:38 AM

Among other good things about him, Peter King (one of the sponsors of the legislation), is that he is not dour but humorful, and apparently was friendly with the equally humorful and undour Tom Tancredo. That's not a reason to support this legislation, which justifies itself, but it's not something to ignore, either.

Posted by: Hugh at June 26, 2008 9:07 AM

MI 14th John Conyers (Chair) -

Best hope this gets to the floor of the Senate, because with Conyers chairing the House Judiciary Committee it'll never see the light of day. Anyone remember his resolution singling out Islam and the Qur'an for special protection?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006322.php

Posted by: Papa Whiskey at June 26, 2008 9:11 AM

Good point, papa whiskey.

Infiltration is real. Conyers is one of them.

Scary stuff:

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=3E761FCC-577E-444D-AC80-2CB7D5F24926

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 26, 2008 9:18 AM

Lets do a deal.

As a Brit, I will support your campaign against the vicious British libel laws, if you do the same about the US's equally vicious extradition treaties and behaviours. You know, the treaty that grabbed three UK bankers and tried them in the US for an alleged crime (that may well not have been a crime in the UK, the UK courts were never given the opportunity) that can only have taken place in the UK, the only victim of which would have been a UK bank! Still it saved the Yanks from having to investigate their own people for the fraud that was Enron.

But of course, Yanks are exempt from being extradited to the rest of the world. So this must be yet another case of the Yanks bullying their way around the world in 80 days?

Start treating your friends like friends. Please?

Posted by: Jeff at June 26, 2008 9:44 AM

Apparently the First Amendment to the US Constitution is not enough in this complicated world

FIRST AMENDMENT

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,or abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press,or the right of the people peacably to assemble,and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Posted by: Mackie at June 26, 2008 9:54 AM

What kind of crappy system are we living under that even calls for a 'Rachel's' law? America has gone down hill a lot. Rachel's law may help the weakening America to get back on her feet, but why are we being knocked down to begin with? Islam is exploiting this, but not causing it. Who, what, 'is' causing it?...Free speech is only one issue. America, the west, and the world in general is under attack by various forces with dubious intentions, from Islam to the weather, and everything between. A combination of self serving forces, all aimed at bringing freedom as Americans know it, or would like to know it, to its knee's. If the government really cared about the people, they would do as the Swiss have done. The Swiss have been on a crash program building bomb shelters for its people since 1960. Every Swiss male carries a gun. Every Swiss household can be sealed up and has gov supplied
air filters and gas masks for everyone. They are prepared. Our government gives us 'Rachel's' law, while digging big holes in mountains for a place for 'them' to run to when the stuff hit's the fan.
The most our gov gives, in this regard, is laws. Not gas masks. The law will not help you if you need a gas mask and don't have one. None of the people listed in this article will get you a gas mask, so I guess you will just have to get one yourself. The best the gov can do is recommend duct tape. When the gov can't or won't protect the people, the people have to do it themselves.
I will support 'Rachel's Law', but I am unhappy that we even need it...

Posted by: duh_swami at June 26, 2008 9:56 AM

Basically, 'Rachel's' law is unenforcable; so why not have a thousand more such pieces of worthless legislation.

That way, we can bind law abiding citizens with red tape and the despots will ignore it anyway -- forcing us to write more legislation.

Yup, I get it now.

Posted by: witness at June 26, 2008 10:31 AM

I am always one to proceed cautiously, and consider all the ramifications of a thing--as much as is possible--before proceeding. Even so, I am rather surprised by the dour nature of many of the comments so far. Maybe we are so used to bad news and worse that it is hard to recognize really good news when we see it.

Folks, this is a serious bit of anti-dhimmitude, and it is entirely bipartisan. It hasn't passed yet, but it is still cause for celebration that "the Free Speech Protection Act" has been introduced at all. Yes, perhaps in a more perfect world, it wouldn't be neccessary at all. Yes, it is mildly annoying that it is a trendy "named" law. This is a niggling detail, though, and ultimately unimportant.

Senator Specter said:

"Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of expression of ideas, opinions, and research, and freedom of exchange of information are all essential to the functioning of a democracy, and the fight against terrorism"

Now, I could parse this--is the US a democracy, or a republic? Why isn't Spector clearer in identifying "terrorism" as "Islamic terrorism", or "jihad"? These are legitimate issues, but ultimately introducing this bill is a clear, straightforward defence of freedom of speech in the face of the judicial jihad that has done so much to limit it.

This is a brave bill. It is true that it only offers protection to US journalists, but if it passes, it may well inspire legislators in other freedom-loving countries to offer their own journalists some protection for speaking the truth.

I'm going to go now so I can write a letter to my representatives. I hope other Americans on this list do the same.

Posted by: gravenimage at June 26, 2008 10:42 AM

"The freedom of American journalists should not be threatened by foreign courts that do not adhere to America's principles of free speech."

Like NYS's "Rachel's Law" this federal bill would protect American journalists from libel suits brought in foreign jurisdictions lacking the same free speech protections found in the U.S. Constitution.

And why would a libel suit brought in a foreign jurisdiction (say, Canada?) ever come before an American court?
And how does this bill protect someone who travels to a foreign country? Foreign courts don't answer to the US Congress or to any branch of the US government at any level - federal, state or local.
Even if this bill protected journalists from foreign damage awards being collected in the US, it still doesn't do a thing to prevent the suits in the first place. Either journalists have to defend themselves in court or voluntarily restrict themselves from traveling to countries whose laws allow for this nonsense. Even if awards can't be collected in US courts foreign plaintiffs must have other options, such as having their government arrest such people as are foolish enough to travel there and charge them with contempt of court or something else to force payment.

Posted by: PMK at June 26, 2008 10:58 AM

If they pass this bill as a national law, I hope it is challenged and appealed up to the Supreme Court, and there "voided" as redundant, since the First Amendment already frees speech, therefore no further lesser statutes are required.

And no foreign laws trump the Constitution.

The 1st Amendment is the mouth.
The 2nd Amendment is the teeth.

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 26, 2008 11:01 AM

And no foreign laws trump the Constitution.

by profitsbeard

First, treaties are "the supreme law of the land".
Congress has a duty to regulate interstate commerce and to set tariffs and otherwise regulate imports, all spelled out in the Constitution. Thanks to the WTO, NAFTA and other creations of our brilliant leaders, those responsibilities have been assumed by NGOs or by bureaucrats, some of them foreign.
Second, the US Supreme Court has said we should look to foreign laws and precedents when interpreting the Constitution. They themselves have decided foreign laws trump the Constitution.

In 1822 Justice Joseph Story put the Court on the slippery slope of reliance on English law in patent cases with his opinion for a bare majority of the justices in the case of Evans v. Eaton.

http://hnn.us/articles/23499.html

Sandra Day O'Connor emphasized the need for US courts to look abroad for precedent when deciding domestic issues, and she wasn't alone.

The high court regarded world opinion when it ruled executing the mentally retarded to be unconstitutional.

The court also relied partly on European Court decisions in its decision to overturn the Texas anti-sodomy law.

Justice Breyer had held that a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that homosexuals had a fundamental right to privacy in their sexual behavior showed the Supreme Court's earlier decision to the contrary was unfounded in the Western tradition.

At this point in our history, the Constitution is whatever five out of nine unelected judges who hold lifetime tenure say it is.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35367

Posted by: PMK at June 26, 2008 11:37 AM

gravenimage,

It's not clear what there is to celebrate. This law is meaningless. It's a feel-good measure, nothing more. It doesn't free US journalists, speakers or academics from the foreign laws, courts or countries that apply their own domestic law in an attempt to silence Americans.
Free speech isn't protected in any way by this law. It won't prevent suits from being filed. It won't relieve journalists of the fear of harassment from foreign governments. It won't give them any assurance that they can travel to those countries without fear of arrest based on what they have written or said here in the US.

Posted by: PMK at June 26, 2008 12:06 PM

The only restriction on Freedom of Speech is lying. Deceit is raised to a fine art in the convoluted logic of the Muslim world, even using our court system to file meaningless libel suits against those who expose their lies. Their lies must be exposed.

I’m not in favor of adding another layer of legislation to what is clearly spelled out in the US Constitution's First Amendment concerning our freedom of speech and belief. But if this tightens up the court rulings in favor of protecting against deceit, then I support it. We are up against the most deceitful enemy the world had ever known, and pulling all stops to head them off at the pass, this lying cheating enemy must be fought, as the battle that must be won by all in the world who support the truth.

Investigative reporting, open discussion on this evil Alla-cult-religious threat, averting frivolous Muslim lawsuits against our freedoms and human rights, is all part of the course to win this war against the barbarian primitive sociopath-political ideology of 'pure' Islam, both its violent terrorism and devious stealth to overturn our freedoms. They must be fought, and forced to obey the truth, if our First Amendment has meaning. We fought great wars over this, to end the slavery of the mind and body, and if it is not fought here again our freedoms may be lost to the Muslim's lying deceitful supremacist world domination ideology of Islamic Jihad. Every step to stop this Cult is a positive one.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at June 26, 2008 12:10 PM

There appears to be some confusion over this proposed law. Although I have not read it, it is my understanding that it does not concern what constitutes free speech, and in that sense doesn't concern the First Amendment at all. It does not prevent someone who believes he has been libeled by an American from filing suit for libel against the American in a foreign court. Other countries have their own laws for libel & jurisdiction that may differ -- and in the case of libel in the U.K. definitely do differ -- from U.S. laws regarding same. What the Free Speech Protection Act would do is prevent foreigners who have won in a foreign court a judgment for libel against an American from coming into a U.S. court & enforcing that foreign judgment (in the form of monetary damages, publishing a retraction, etc.) UNLESS the statements in question constitute libel under U.S. law.

Posted by: sheik yer booty at June 26, 2008 12:58 PM

It's a good start, but says nothing about domestic lawsuits, and in no way precludes the passage of hate crime and hate speech laws being passed in the U.S. It only addresses foreign lawsuits. What a foreign person or group can't do, CAIR, and other domestic Islamic groups and individuals can do for them.

If Canada passed such a law, as it is worded here, it would in no way prevent the prosecution of individuals, journalists or authors, under Canada's existing hate speech laws.

It seems to me that this law deliberately leaves the door open to the passage of more hate crime, and hate speech laws, in the U.S.

I'm sure there are many people at this site who could compose a single paragraph law that would offer real protection to individuals, authors and journalists, from being sued for exercising their first amendment rights to freedom of speech and press, but I doubt it could pass either house of the Congress. There are too many in Congress who are in love with the concept that you can combat hate, and create a a more just and fair society, by stiffling other people's right to free speech.

Give me somethig serious to write my Congressmen about.

Posted by: rational at June 26, 2008 1:20 PM

I'm with 'gravenimage' on this one. Even assuming the law is truly unnecessary or redundant, which I don't think it is, so what? It's a legislative pronouncement backing up the American principle of the sanctity of free speech. It will mean that American courts can completely ignore any foreign court's ruling that would be adverse to a writer in some kind of libel suit (and by extension to a broadcast journalist in any slander proceeding). As for not being able to protect a journalist abroad, no American law could. When one leaves America's shores, one leaves America's laws behind as well.

Posted by: Wellington at June 26, 2008 1:20 PM

Jeff: You are mistaken when you aver that Americans are exempt from being extradited to the rest of the world. The US has extradition treaties with many countries, including Britain. It's true that America in the case of the US/British treaty requires prima facie evidence from Britain as a preliminary to extradition and the UK I don't believe does, but that's an oversight that should be blamed on the British government, not ours. Nonetheless, I am fully supportive of your desire for reciprocity in principle and can only hope that the "Special Relationship," which has taken a few beatings lately, will remain in tact into the indefinite future. Oh, by the way, the US government absolutely investigated its own people in the Enron debacle. Ken Lay is a case in point, although in this instance the defendant died before legal proceedings could reach their conclusion.

Posted by: Wellington at June 26, 2008 1:57 PM

witness: I must respectfully disagree with you on one issue. America is both a republic and a democracy. Unless one uses the term "democracy" in a more narrow sense to mean only a pure democracy, by which the citizens themselves attend legislative meetings and do not vote for folks to represent them (as was done, for example, in ancient Athens), then our government is indeed a republic and a representative democracy. A few Founding Fathers (e.g., James Madison in The Federalist No. 10) restricted the term "democracy" to only a pure one, but this was already becoming an anachronistic use of the term even in the lifetime of America's first generation. Whether the democracy is pure or representative, it is still a democracy.

As for the term "republic," it can either mean a state that does not possess a monarch or can function as a synonym for a representative democracy. Hence, America is a republic twice over, with some redundancy to be sure when she is referred to as both a republic and a democracy, as I did above.

Posted by: Wellington at June 26, 2008 2:21 PM

"What the Free Speech Protection Act would do is prevent foreigners who have won in a foreign court a judgment for libel against an American from coming into a U.S. court & enforcing that foreign judgment (in the form of monetary damages, publishing a retraction, etc.) UNLESS the statements in question constitute libel under U.S. law."

Posted by: sheik yer booty

But of what use is it? Who will decide whether the statements in question constitute libel under US law? Wouldn't that require a trial in an American court first, or would a judge read the trial transcript and hand down his own decision?
Few American publications remain within our borders. Most are read or distributed overseas, via the internet. Someone in London can get on an American website and find something he doesn't like and file suit against the author in London? What does that portend for the author? If he doesn't appear he'll lose by default. He'd probably forever have to avoid that country in order to avoid being served a warrant or writ requiring him to appear in court and pay damages. Those who want to avoid such indignities will censor themselves beforehand. Mission accomplished.

Posted by: PMK at June 26, 2008 2:35 PM

It will mean that American courts can completely ignore any foreign court's ruling that would be adverse to a writer in some kind of libel suit (and by extension to a broadcast journalist in any slander proceeding). As for not being able to protect a journalist abroad, no American law could. When one leaves America's shores, one leaves America's laws behind as well.

Posted by: Wellington

Wellington,

The courts CAN ignore it. They're not REQUIRED to. What other country allows such rulings even the chance of being enforced? Isn't the rule in America that if something isn't a crime here that we wouldn't extradite a person? We didn't return Soviet emigres whose "crime" was speaking out against the state, because that isn't a crime here. Why would we even think of enforcing libel decisions rendered by a foreign court if the writing in question didn't meet American standards for libel and it was published by an American in America? Why should someone who has never left America's shores not be protected by American law?

Posted by: PMK at June 26, 2008 3:27 PM

Witness: The original bill makes it clear that the protection is for people and/or companies legally working in the United States (referred to as United States persons).

Also, not just journalists or researchers are covered in this. The bill refers to a: "journalist, academic, commentator, expert, or other individual" which should cover anyone.

Another positive part of the bill are the damages awarded to an American defendant who is wrongfully convicted of libel (at least what would be constituted libel in American courts): the amount of the damages asked for by the foreign plaintiff plus court costs. Also if the US court determines the lawsuit was undertaken to instill fear in authors and/or publishers, then the penalty can be TRIPLE that amount...

What concerns me are (1)the issue PMK raises: who determines what constitutes a violation of US libel laws? and (2) in the bill, defamation is defined as: "any action for defamation, libel, slander, or similar claim alleging that forms of speech are false OR have caused damage to reputation."

First that definition is rather strange, but I took it straight off the bill. Second, that conjunction OR makes it sound like truth is no defense if the person's reputation is damaged. THat sounds more like the Shariah definition of slander is, not the American one.

Thoughts? Can't the bill be made stronger by saying that NO slander/libel judgment of a foreign court will have standing in a US court if the work in question was published solely in the US by a legal US person?

Posted by: former liberal WF at June 26, 2008 3:51 PM

PMK: I haven't read the exact wording of the bill but above it says that it will authorize a US court to ignore a foreign court's ruling in this matter. Two points here: 1) This represents all the more reason why having strict constructionist (and patriotic) judges rather than the living, breathing Constitution type (am I questioning such a type's patriotism?-----damn right I am) in the judicial branch is so important. 2) Your comparison to a Soviet dissident protected here during the Cold War is not quite apt because in virutally no instance would such a person have been in the wrong, but it is possible that an American journalist would actually engage in some egregious defamation endeavor abroad (what a shock, no, that an American journalist could be so irresponsible?) and thus one could argue that in a limited number of cases such an individual should be held liable. After all, with freedom comes responsibility, something modern American journalism has shown precious little understanding of in recent decades.

Posted by: Wellington at June 26, 2008 4:05 PM

THE FREE SPEECH PROTECTION ACT

We need that in Canada - protection from Human Rights Commissions.

Posted by: johnb at June 26, 2008 4:12 PM

PMK asks:

"Who will decide whether the statements in question constitute libel under US law?"

U.S. Federal (not state) courts would be given sole jurisdiction to hear these actions.

"Wouldn't that require a trial in an American court first, or would a judge read the trial transcript and hand down his own decision?"
Again, I haven't read the bill, but given that the intent of the bill is to protect our First Amendment right, I would assume that there would be a new trial on the libel issue, & although the U.S. court might well review the foreign court's trial transcript (assuming there is one), that transcript , I'm sure, would in no way bind the U.S. court on the finding of any fact or matter or law.

You're right about the chilling effect non-U.S. libel laws can have on Americans exercising their First Amendment rights here in the U.S. I don't know whether Ehrenfeld's tormenter could seek enforcement of his U.K. verdict in any court in the EU, but if so, she won't be spending any more time in Paris, Berlin or Rome. However, & this is an important point, as bad as that chilling effect is, it is nowhere near as great as it would be if that saudi or kuwaiti financier who sued Rachel Ehrenfeld were able to enforce the U.K. court's judgment against her in the U.S.

former liberal WF wonders about the bill's definition of libel. Again, since the bill's intention is not to broaden or limit what constitutes free speech, I would think that the bill's definition of libel & other speech terms would track word for word their definition elsewhere in the United States Code.

That treble damages provision you mentioned is a great feature.

Posted by: sheik yer booty at June 26, 2008 4:52 PM

What concerns me are (1)the issue PMK raises: who determines what constitutes a violation of US libel laws? and (2) in the bill, defamation is defined as: "any action for defamation, libel, slander, or similar claim alleging that forms of speech are false OR have caused damage to reputation."

I was wondering about these things as well.

My tendancy is to believe that if already existing legislation was enforced, you would have little need for new laws; in this case I still fail to see how this legislation is of benefit anymore than what we are already supposed to have.

As for democracy, I mean it in the sense that Ben Franklin used the term.

Feel free to disagree with me ... I assure you, it's okay ;)

Posted by: witness at June 26, 2008 9:36 PM

sheik,
This sounds like a back door to the US judicial system. A case that couldn't be filed in a US court would be entered in London, Brussels or wherever, and the guilty verdict would be used to force a trial in a US court.
It's hate crime legislation disguised as libel law.

Wellington,
The cold war comparison is clumsy but maybe there's a better analogy, one that is more current: Muslims in the West who kill their wives and daughters and then run back to Islamdom. Any western country would extradite them to stand trial for murder. A country ruled by Sharia would refuse to grant extradition because the man acted in accordance with sharia law and the tradition of Mohammed. Killing your wife isn't always illegal in Saudi Arabia.
The same reasoning applies with the Cold War. The dissident would not have been in the wrong under American law for speaking out against Communism or for trying to escape its clutches but he might have been tried or imprisoned under Soviet law for either of these actions. Upon reaching the West he would be safe because no Western government would recognize those acts as crimes and so wouldn't extradite him back to Russia.
As with the Muslim man who kills his unfaithful wife: It's murder in America; it's the man's right in Saudi Arabia.
The same thing here with the libel law. It's hate speech in London. It's free speech in Long Island. Why should an American journalist who writes for an American publication have to answer to a court in London? The US journalist is not a citizen of the UK and is not bound by the many "hate speech" codes prevalent throughout Europe. The US has clear and specific laws for libel and slander. American journalists and publications breach those laws at their peril.

Posted by: PMK at June 26, 2008 9:57 PM

Mackie,

...And today the Supremes extended great support to the 2nd Amendment.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 26, 2008 10:46 PM

PMK: Your last comment stands as testimony to the traditional superiority of Western legal precepts over all other legal systems and American law as first among equals respecting enlightened legal thinking among Western nations (with exceptions of course). As for some American journalist having to answer in London (or Ottawa or Paris or...) to a touchy-feely, multicultural and, in such an instance, pathetic English court of law for a nonsensical hate speech violation, don't you see that the law in discussion in this post would function as an additional legal safeguard to prevent just such a liability? Unless the American journalist in question really did engage in defamation by any time-honored measurement and reasonable man standard (in which case one could ask why should such a person not be held accountable), this new law would act as a further piece of legal and financial insurance for the defendant, who can then, with even more self-assurance, thumb his nose at the legallay and ethically deficient foreign tribunal demanding whatever for no really good reason, provided, of course, that the presiding American judge is not too loosy-goosy liberal, this factor functioning as the true weak link in this entire matter.

Posted by: Wellington at June 26, 2008 11:58 PM

witness;

Without question your first post above hits the mark, the Constitution of this great land has this issue firmly nailed down.

Without question, some of the names attached to this should be a red flag warning, respect given to King and setting him aside here.

The U.N. would serve this issue better, if it would function as a world council.

Again, fine post witness.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at June 27, 2008 2:54 AM

Wellington,
In answer: I DON"T see this law as protection for journalists. It doesn't prevent the journalist from being held to someone else's standards. Even if he ignores the procedure in London or Riyadh, he still has to hire a lawyer to defend himself before an American judge. The outcome is dependent on an American judge ruling that free speech trumps all and there is too much history of American judges using international standards to decide cases, even in contravention of American law. That is why I see this as a feel-good measure, nothing more. It sounds good. It looks good on paper. Its practical impact is negligible. It might even be dangerous because it gives us a false sense of security.

Posted by: PMK at June 27, 2008 10:22 AM

PMK: Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree here, though the hassle of hiring a lawyer you're correct about but this would have to be done anyway irrespective of this law. And nothing America could do would prevent an American jounalist from being held to some other country's standards. As for a long legacy of American judges using international law or other legal systems to decide cases here at home, this just isn't the case. Only very recently have American judges begun to invoke non-American legal principles, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy being the most glaring example here. I'm sure you would join me in deploring this development and, I must admit, such development adds weight to your argument and not mine. Good going back and forth with you on this. Take care.

Posted by: Wellington at June 27, 2008 12:41 PM

Wellington,
Let's disagree. One thing to remember: the first time foreign law was used by the Supreme Court to decide a case was in 1822, by the then Chief Justice. Early on in this back-and-forth, I cited it and linked to it.
Thanks for the exchange.

Posted by: PMK at June 27, 2008 4:23 PM

PMK: I thought this particular exchange would be over with my last comment or, at latest, one more by you, but your last reply immediately made me realize that I had to respond yet again. Hopefully you won't consider this response of mine petty or unimportant because we are so much on the same page with respect to the many dysfunctional aspects of the Islamic faith, the key issue at this website. Nonetheless, I felt compelled to point out: 1) in 1822 not Justice Story but Justice Marshall was the Chief Justice (from 1801-1835 and the single most influential Supreme Court Justice to date) and 2) Justice Story's invocation of English law went back to Sir Edward Coke (which I learned in law school should never be pronounced like the soft drink of same name but rather as "Cook") who flourished in the early seventeenth century-----and thus Story's reference to Coke was very much in keeping with America accepting English law down to the Revolution.

As for Jefferson's objection to drawing upon English legal principles, which was noted in the article you provided a link for, I stand second to none in admiration of Old Tom and, in fact, did my Master's Thesis in History on his interpretation of Christianity {after having switched from medieval to American history}, but the esteemed third President was very often easily incensed by anything smacking of British influence. After all, a goodly portion of the basis for disagreement between Alexander Hamilton and Jefferson was the former's admiration for much that was British, while the latter was beholden intellectually and emotionally to France.

I will close by noting that the one exception to the American judiciary looking to foreign legal precedents, which I would make allowance for, would be across the pond to the Mother Country, whence so much of which that contributed to America's greatness has its origins. Again, thanks for the exchange. I believe you're as impassioned as I am in preserving the uniqueness of America and in realizing the greatness of Western Civilization, both of which are so threatened by the most malevolent spiritual totalitarian system in man's history. My best to you and yours.

Posted by: Wellington at June 27, 2008 7:37 PM