……………………..Limits are for governments.

Amend the Constitution So That the Supremacy Clause Refers to Treaties with Other Sovereign Nations and Does Not Include Treaties With Collective International Bodies (Such as the UN)

The treaties signed with the UN are considered international treaties, of course, and under the “Supremacy Clause” of our Constitution, these cannot override the Constitution but do trump state laws. So signing treaties with the UN does two things. It provides a way for distant world bodies and the Federal Government to change domestic policy by fiat, and it gives the activist judges and courts everywhere an international document to refer to in deciding local and state cases.

There are treaties with the UN awaiting ratification by the Senate which intrude into every area of our lives, from how we educate our children and what they are taught, to how and where we get our energy, to what we produce in our country, to whether we may fish or mine our own coastal waters – just to offer a few grievous examples. The response to some of these threats has been to attempt to add individual Constitutional amendments which would defend against Federal and International dictates created by treaties with the UN. For example, the Parental Rights Amendment has been introduced in the House and Senate protecting the duty and right of parents to educate and raise their own children in response to the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I think that one single amendment would be more efficient and effective: an amendment which defines a treaty as an agreement with one or several governments of other sovereign nations, as signed with their leaders, in their State Capitals, but not with an international collective of nations such as the UN. This could pass Constitutional muster and respect the intent of the writers in Article VI Clause 2. Treaties with the UN are only being used to undermine domestic policy which was decided by voters and states, and to give the Fed gov’t expanded powers into state gov’t, lower courts, and resources which they do not now legitimately possess.  We, in the West, have wonderful Republics and they will work for us even under the gravest threats and tests, if we continue to believe in the balance and separation of powers and in our founding principles.

12 responses

  1. adolfogiurfa

    This is a very interesting proposal applicable to every country, where treaties with the UN are already considered binding agreements. In order to preserve freedom the system of sovereign nations should be kept. Current facilities in communications and technology will make us recognize and respect ourselves in our differences and diversity; submitting our personal freedoms to unknown, unelected and most probably self indulging UN officials implies treason to human most valuable principles.
    You should publish your idea everywhere possible.

    July 1, 2012 at 4:11 pm

  2. Adolfo, thank you for your comment – although I know you do not lose much love on the UN, and did not need a lot of convincing ;) :D

    It really is inconceivable that we sign treaties with the UN which trump our state laws, considering that the majority of the 193 member nations are not free, either politically or economically. This gives Tripoli and Rhiad the ability to override what was decided in Dallas or Denver by voters!

    It is quite simple to require a visit to the Capital of every individual nation the American politicians wish to make a treaty with. There should not be any reason to object.

    Electric regards.

    July 1, 2012 at 6:15 pm

  3. And next we simply need to impeach all of the dratted little “justices” that refer to unratified treaties with foreign dictators in their court decisions!

    July 1, 2012 at 6:18 pm

  4. I looked at some other changes to the Constitution here:

    and included a specific statement that treaties could not over ride US Law. I’ll need to think about how to integrate this one too… I think it is a keeper. “Treaties can only be made with individual sovereign Nations” seems about right…

    July 1, 2012 at 9:39 pm

  5. Very nice wish list El Cheifio. Especially the top 20. ;)

    July 2, 2012 at 12:25 am

  6. Zeke, Happy 4th of July! pg

    July 4, 2012 at 8:51 pm

  7. Thank you, Happy Independence Day to you too, and Mrs. PG. :)

    I don’t know if you saw this but the show continues in the July night sky at dawn –

    It was pretty this morning. Of course I was walking into the walls the rest of the day…not a dawn person. Electric regards.

    July 4, 2012 at 10:34 pm

  8. More on Treaties and Domestic Law

    “The Supreme Court has declared that neither a treaty approved
    by the Senate nor an executive agreement made
    under the President’s authority can create obligations
    that violate constitutional guarantees such
    as found in the Bill of Rights.

    Reid v.Covert (1957).

    Like federal statutes, treaties are “supreme”
    only when they are effective as domestic law.
    Thus, the manner in which treaties become
    legally effective is important. “Self-executing
    treaties” become part of the law of the United
    States directly. On the other hand, the courts will
    not enforce “non-self-executing treaties” until
    they are carried into law by an act of Congress.
    Determining whether a treaty is self-executing
    or non-self-executing is a complex and confusing
    task, as lower courts have readily averred.”

    October 18, 2012 at 6:23 pm

  9. More on Foreign Law and Unratified Treaties in Courts

    “…[A] new challenge to American families and our constitutional republic has been launched by the federal judiciary. Under a legal doctrine sanctioned by the United States Supreme Court, the federal courts have begun to treat unratified treaties as binding on the United States. Already one federal district court has employed this doctrine to declare that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC or CRC) is binding on the United States even though it has never been ratified by the Senate.

    The legal doctrine is called “customary international law.” The advocates of this doctrine claim that it is derived from the “law of nations”—a legal concept that is specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.”

    October 18, 2012 at 6:24 pm

  10. Borat, Ballots, and State Sovereignty
    Trent England

    “Election monitors” from the U.N.-affiliated Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe are getting a U.S. civics lesson courtesy of Texas and Iowa. Both states have warned the monitors that state election laws have no special provisions for European tourists. That means if the foreign monitors get within 100 feet of a Texas polling place, or 300 feet in Iowa, they will be violating state law. And both states have committed to enforcing their laws and, if necessary, arresting the monitors.

    The OSCE has complained—to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. What the European bureaucrats fail to understand is that the United States is still a republica of states. The states have responsibility for election administration, with their own laws, which executive branch officials in each state are obligated to enforce.

    While Europeans might put up with ad hoc waivers and special privileges granted to U.N. officials, at least some U.S. states take a dimmer view to foreign interference or the implication that we need election babysitters from Europe. (Didn’t we fight a war against one European government that “sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people…”?)

    U.S. State Department officials might take notice as well, instead of siding with the U.N. (some might wonder if the feds have “combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws”). Ordinary Americans have historically have been skeptical of far-away bureaucrats who are “here to help.” And it doesn’t get much farther away than where these observers come from—places like Azerbaijan, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. And while we would never take a cheap shot at Kazakhstan a la Sacha Baron Cohen (though we did notice the first name of one of the nation’s election observers is “Bolat”…), the country is rated “not free” by Freedom House.

    Actually, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Belarus are all rated “not free.” I wrote more about this last week.

    The United States is a federal republic where states retain most government power—all powers, in fact, not specifically designated in the Constitution to the federal government. Most power over elections—thankfully—remains with the states. Officials in Washington, D.C., do not control our election processes. No presidential appointee oversees presidential elections. While no election system is perfect, in our system we get to learn as states experiment and compete with different election policies. And election problems and disputes remain contained in individual states. This is one reason for the Freedom Foundation’s Save Our States project, which defends the Electoral College. And it’s a lesson Texas and Iowa are teaching the U.N.—and the U.S. State Department.

    November 6, 2012 at 8:16 pm

  11. On Federalism and preserving the Electoral College:

    November 6, 2012 at 8:19 pm

  12. When this country was founded one of the main grips was that the King controlled all the resources and in the new Republic the Federal government was Denied ownership of the lands. The government only had stewardship of the western lands until they could be transferred into private hands. Another part of our founding documents that has been covered over by the progressives. pg

    November 9, 2012 at 12:04 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s