Constitutional-Literacy-21

=**Section 21: International Law**=

The Revolutionary War was fought on one premise - that Americans should make law for America. They believed in self-government - that under the natural law of God, self-government was a basic human right. They also believed that it was their right under the British constitutional system to continue the century and a half British practice of American self-government.

Today, Progressives work to diminish this principle by promoting more global government ideas. There are various United Nations treaties that if approved by the U.S. would control U.S. domestic policy. à Each of these are designed to control the domestic policies of countries that sign them
 * UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
 * UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
 * International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights

From the CEDAW document – “The establishment of the new international economic order based on equity and justice will contribute significantly towards the promotion of equality between men and women. A change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family is needed to achieve full equality between men and women. The strengthening of international peace and security, the relaxation of international tension, mutual cooperation among all states (nations) irrespective of their social and economic systems, general and complete disarmament, in particular nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control.” These are just three of the UN goals: (1) new international economic order – socialist and redistributive in character, (2) to change the traditional roles of men and women in society and in the family, and (3) complete and total disarmament. These aren’t the kinds of goals you’d find in a treaty that is supposed to be protecting the rights of women.


 * Comprehension Question: How is the UN treaty that is aimed at rights of women not really a treaty that is all about rights for women?**

International law and domestic law are entirely different systems (like NCAA and NFL).
 * International law – substantive international law and international courts and tribunals
 * Hypothetical: Sweden takes U.S. to court (International Court of Justice) over treaty obligations; U.S. says some of the obligations are a violation of our Constitution so we cannot comply; World Court typically rules that treaties are superior to constitutions; really no authority to enforce…relies principally on the honor system. Since international law is hard to enforce, there are attempts to get international law to be able to work in domestic courts.
 * The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution includes treaties as part of the supreme law of the land. This was challenged when the U.S. entered into a treaty with Britain on hunting migratory birds (this was when Britain controlled Canada). A federal game warden tried to enforce it in Missouri. The case went into the courts. In Missouri v. Holland 1920 the Supreme Court ruled the 10th amendment didn’t pose any barrier to treaty powers; federal control over hunting migratory birds couldn’t be accomplished by Congress, but could be by treaty. This treaty dealt with how a nation treats another nation. The Supremacy Clause says that the U.S. Constitution and treaties override state laws and state constitutions.
 * The problem today is that the UN has created a series of human rights treaties that aim to set international legal standards that touch nearly every aspect of our domestic law.


 * Comprehension Question: What part of the Constitution determines whether treaties override state laws and state constitutions?**

CRC: This treaty controls every decision made about every child. It controls education, discipline, health care, religion, food, clothing, housing, speech, recreation, and much more. It doesn’t merely concern itself with how government treats children, but also seeks to regulate how parents treat their children in every area of life. This treaty has nothing to do with how a nation treats another nation. It seeks to control domestic policy. What if it’s ratified in the U.S.? The Supremacy Clause says treaties are supreme over any inconsistent provisions of the state’s constitution or laws. We wouldn’t have to worry about UN officials coming into our country to enforce such laws, it would be social workers abiding by the treaty and being upheld by the courts. This would be similar to federal mandates having to be enforced by state officials. This is why it’s important to understand why UN treaties aren’t good for America and need to be defeated.


 * Discussion Question: The CRC sounds good, but why does it need to be defeated?**


 * Discussion Question: Virtually all American laws on children are state laws. Therefore, how would the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child override virtually all American law on the subject of parents and children if it would be ratified?**

Even though CRC was never ratified in the U.S., it’s already been used in domestic cases. In NYC, a judge used it in customary international law (Statute of the International Court of Justice is a treaty that all UN member nations are part of and in Article 38 specifies how international law is made) – sets a worldwide standard – says “International conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states.” “International custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law.”

Basically courts and law professors get to make international law. There are rules for making customary international law – (1) the vast majority of nations need to conduct themselves in accordance with the rule and (2) they must do so out of a sense of legal obligation.
 * Rolling out the red carpet for a foreign dignitary doesn’t meet both rules, just the first, so it isn’t customary international law. Here’s a secret to customary international law – If a court recognizes a rule of customary international law, it binds every nation on earth and not just the nations that have consented to the rule. There was a case in Philadelphia where the court ruled due to binding on sex trafficking in an international law that had 143 parties to. There are 193 parties to CRC, 160 to ICESCR, and 186 to CEDAW so it stands to reason if a treaty with 143 parties can create binding on customary international law, it’s possible for one of these other three to become binding the same way.

In Roper v. Simmons 2005 and Graham v. Florida 2010 the Supreme Court used the CRC standards as persuasive guides to interpreting the Constitution. This throws out all original intent of the Constitution. Modern international law has no place in interpreting the meaning of the terms found in the Constitution of the U.S. Supreme Court opened a dangerous door by its soft indirect use of the CRC serves as an invitation to lower courts to use this treaty more aggressively. It’s important to understand that the U.S. hasn’t even ratified the CRC.


 * Comprehension Question: How has the Supreme Court opened a dangerous door in terms of UN agenda being implemented in the U.S. without even a treaty ratified?**


 * Discussion Question: Should the United States commit itself to obeying United Nations human rights treaties even though they have abilities to create more of a global government? Why or why not?**


 * Discussion Question: What are the major dangers of international law to our republic?**

**Overall: Summarize the main idea of this section and why it's important.**

Back to the Constitutional Literacy main page