Posted on 09/18/2001 11:40:36 PM PDT by asneditor
The United Nations has been in the news recently because of the romper-room atmosphere that prevails in South Africa as the nations gathered to discuss racism, xenophobia and "related intolerance's."
The Bush Administration wisely decided not to send our top guy, Colin Powell, to represent the U.S. at this absurd fracas -- there are only lower level State Dept. functionaries. The event quickly became what it was intended to become -- an opportunity for Arab nations to trash Israel and for African "nations" to hustle the U.S. for money as reparations for slavery. The resolution very unsubtly denounced and demanded payments only for the "trans-Atlantic" slave trade. Slave trading among Africans apparently does not require and "reparations." Slavery was legal in the United States for roughly 90 years. Prior to 1776 it was legal in the colonies governed by England. It was a factor in a bloody Civil War that produced a constitutional amendment ending slavery. Slavery has been abolished in the United States for longer than it was legal.
But the bizarre farce in South Africa is not the only, or even the worst abuse mounted by this international Mafia (with apologies to the real Outfit). The Jew-baiting and hate-America session will be followed on Sept. 19 by a special session on children. This has sparked concern because it is expected to produce a document calling for more rights for children at the expense of their parents. Among these rights will be access to birth control and abortion, Unfortunately, this time the Bush Administration, after first declaring it would not send a high-level delegation, backed off that position.
By any sensible assessment Americans should give a hoot what the UN says about kids and how they should be raised or what their rights are. That's what we have state legislatures for. But the ugly reality is that if the United States government signs on to whatever the UN comes up with the rights of U.S. parents are in real jeopardy.
In 1920, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Missouri vs. Holland that the Tenth Amendment does not protect the rights of the states or of the people if congress acts pursuant to a treaty. The case involved a migratory bird protection treaty between the U.S. and Canada. When Congress passed laws implementing the treaty the state of Missouri sued claiming that under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states have the authority to regulate hunting of game within their borders.
In fact, as the Court noted, Congress had attempted once before to protect migratory birds but the law was found invalid precisely because it violated the sovereignty of the states. In explaining the different conclusion in Holland vs. Missouri, the Court asserted, "Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States." In plain language that means the Constitution does not limit what Congress may do in compliance with a valid treaty. Hang on, it gets worse.
Under the constitution a treaty must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. This provides some protection of our rights since the threat that a proposed treaty poses to our rights can be brought out in Senate debate and even cause the treaty to be rejected. But in 1942, the Supreme Court struck again.
In Pink vs. U.S., a complicated case involving assets of a Russian firm doing business in New York, the court held that the Executive Branch has the authority to speak for the United States in reaching agreements with other countries and, unlike treaties, such agreements do not require the advice and consent of the Senate and "are to be exercised without regard to state laws or policies." These executive agreements differ from treaties in another important aspect. There is no public debate in the Senate or anywhere else unless a reporter gets wind of what's going down.
As early as 1952, there were some in the Congress who saw the United Nations as a threat to the sovereignty of the United States and rights of Americans. One of them was Sen. John Bricker of Ohio who feared that the U.S. would enter into agreements and treaties which, when implemented, might violate the Constitutional rights of Americans.
He proposed an amendment to the Constitution providing that a treaty or other international agreement which conflicts with the Constitution "shall not be the supreme law of the land nor be of any force or effect." It further provided that any law enacted as part of a treaty or international agreement must be valid on its own even if there were no treaty. In other words, a treaty could not redeem an otherwise invalid act of Congress. And, finally, it provided that all executive agreements "shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article." That means so-called executive agreements that conflict with the Constitution are not the law of the land.
The United Nations has concocted a number of conventions and treaties dealing a wide range of topics. These conventions deal with such domestic topics as child rearing, suppression of religious beliefs that conflict with UN goals, gun control and a host of purely domestics issues. The U.S. has signed some of these including the infamous International Criminal Court which claims the authority to try individuals accused of crimes defined by the UN, in locations and under rules determined by the UN. A Fox In The U.S. Henhouse
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.