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.