Posted on 12/26/2006 7:20:00 PM PST by USA Girl
U.N. threatening to trump U.S. Constitution
By Olivia St. John
As the political cauldron heats up for the coming 2008 presidential election, few Americans seem to realize that their personal freedoms secured under the Constitution are perilously close to being trumped by the United Nations.
Preposterous, you say? Not if a Democrat Senate and Democrat president ratify U.N. treaties, such as the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, aimed at dangerously weakening national sovereignty.
A case in point is the European Convention on Human Rights, an offshoot of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is currently being used by the German government to ban homeschooling and to indoctrinate public and private school students into fully embracing a socialist state. Recently, almost 40 German families have endured imprisonment, heavy fines, state seizure of children, and in some cases the serious hardship of seeking asylum in neighboring countries, all because they have chosen to homeschool their children due to concerns over hedonistic exposure to sexually explicit materials in the German public school system. Incredibly, Sven-Georg Adenauer, a Christian-Democrat governor joined at the hip with the Socialist party, demanded the prison sentences.
According to LifeSiteNews.com, the European Court utilized Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and concluded that "Parents may not refuse the right to education of a child on the basis of their convictions" adding that the right to education "by its very nature calls for regulation by the State."
Furthermore, "the Court agreed with the finding of Germany's Federal Constitutional Court which stressed 'the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society.'"
The fiasco in Germany is only a sample of what might happen in the U.S. if....
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
whoops, sorry i didn't mean to post the entire list there, I had to do some creative copying and pasting cuz im at a public (blech) library...
review
The ground work is being set up for total loss of any Constitutional Rights our Fathers once had and has been for some time. I honestly believe it began with earnest during FDR's presidency.The major stumbling block for the Globalist the Internationale has always been and God willing will always be the "American" value. Freedom of the individual over the collective good for society which eliminates all real freedom.
The 'constitution' which you have accented in red refers to constitutions of the individual states. It is not referring to itself, the federal constitution. Let's start with that. Is that your understanding?
Concerning any treaty, as already discussed, congress can pass no law that is not in pursuance to the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights, regardless of treaty provisions. Treaties are only effective if they they are based in law and can be enforced. Any treaty law that is passed must meet the 'pursuancy' test before it can be enforced. That's why we have the supreme court -- to determine the 'pursuancy of a law.
Naturally, it would be far better if Congress could have the question of constitutionality settled before a law was passed, but that would put most of the lawyers in the country out of work. ;<
To re-iterate, nothing trumps the supreme law. Further laws enacted can become part of the supreme law, but only if those laws are in pursuance to the supreme law to begin with -- do not abrogate or replace, are in harmony with.
I'll admit that isn't the way things have been working since congress decided how to circumvent and mis-interpret Article VI, para 2 with the Bird Kill act of 1918, and other bad law since. But someday we'll get it all straight again. Not to worry.
I'm not speaking against treaties. Many are absolutely necessary.
Forgot to correct your quote in red. It's not, 'anything.' It's 'any Thing.'
LOL! Thanks for the pings, Travis.
Happy New Year!
Not sure exactly what it is you are referring to, Chances are. Are you saying that the word, 'constitution,' that you have highlighted in red is referring to the federal constitution?
Interesting, Germany is having the same problems we have here. Difference is that Americans will never stand for this.
Odd how that works...
5.56mm
"Your position is that what the SC rules, constitutional or otherwise, is correct by virtue of their having ruled so? "
No, but our illustrious leaders seem to feel that way, and as long as they accept the BS of the supreme court, we all have to by default. (or accept the consequences)
True. However, to some extent, the "constitutionalty of it", is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. It wouldn't be the first time that the Supreme Court would be contorting the Consitution into something unrecognizable. But if they tried it with the home-schooling issue, I think that there would be a revolution in this country.
On the other hand, while I agree that the Democrats suck, if this is a partisan, tempest-in-a-teapot, fear-mongering attempt by a Republican just to drum up votes for the Republicans, then that sucks just as badly.
What this says it that the Federal Constitution and legitimately ratified treaties trump State Constitutions and laws.
I think a lot of people these days don't understand correct English construction, (or perhaps the English language has been so dumbed down that things like clauses are not understood by a lot of readers).
Your take is not an SC take. It has been there before. And it wouldn't matter. If they are equal then it is up to a toss of the coin on the Court. In the matter of equal stature then the latest would trump. It would take an Amendment to turn it around and that would take years and is not even close to likely to happen because the same Senate that ratifies the treaty would have to pass an Amendment by 2/3 before it goes to the states for 3/4. Or the country can wait for a more favorable Congress and many years of fait accompli. That is all why the Senate does not easily ratify treaties that might just conflict with terms of the Constitution.
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.