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 ...
"I think you left out their aim to trump the Second Ammendment as well".
Be sure and check under your bed for the boogie man every night.
If there is one thing Senators understand it is power and there is no way Senators are going to cede the power to make goofy laws 'to protect the children' to the UN.
Most patriots have guns.
You're absolutely correct, and this story from a home-school mom about the threats to our Republic are sincere, but seriously goofy.
I don't care what German courts rule. They have their laws and their constitution and their wacky way of looking at the world.
It doesn't apply here.
That dog don't hunt.
Sorry to interrupt your thinking, but you have that ass backwards. Congress can pass no law that is not in pursuance to the Constitution/Bill of Rights (first ten Amendments), treaty laws notwithstanding. There is an hierarchical and logical flow to Article VI, para 2, the supremacy clause.
Lemme rephrase that: Congress can pass laws based on treaties so long as they are in pursuance to the Bill of Rights/Constitution.
What is it about the Bill of Rights that causes many folks to believe it is not part of the Constitution, and, in fact, is the reason the Constitution was written?
The Constitution/Bill of Rights is not a suicide note. Over-riding the supreme law with conflicting treaty laws nullifies the whole document and brings to naught the guarantee and protection of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Yet another reason not to bring a child into this world. Just want I would not want to do, make little socialists for the socialists to educate.
You're right, and let me elaborate on that.
What sense would it make for the Framers to put an elaborate mechanism to amend the Constitution, requiring a vote of BOTH 2/3rds of the House and Senate, plus ratification of 3/4ths of the states, when this author would have it done by a simple vote by the Senate and a Presidential signature?
The framers were not that stupid, and they didn't write it that way. Panty-wetters can quit wetting their panties.
Yea, they're called "green belts"...and it could be your private property they're coming after next.
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm
IT is slowly happening, but not many are paying attention. Did we ever think we'd see gay marriage & gays being so socially accepted??? I didn't! How about smokers, they are like criminals now!
These are all signs of our country turning into a socialist state!
I wish it were only the panty-wetters we'd have to meet on the battlefield if we ever have to resolve the issue again.
I wouldn't think so. The Constitution is acknowledged supremacy in law, under which is legislation and treaties. Legislation can't change Constitutional provisions, so neither can treaties. They can be made part of the law, but they can as easily be repealed.
That means, for instance, a treaty that attempted to ban the ownership and possession of any firearm would be unconstitutional, or a treaty that demands censorship on the press.
Congress can't do by treaty anything that's not within their power to do directly. That being said, the New Deal Commerce Clause makes "what they can't do directly" pretty well non existent. To quote Clarence Thomas - "every blade of grass".
No politician has the power to sign away the rights spelled out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The American public will be within its rights (and duty) to eliminate those who try.
"Don't you know this means waaar"!- Buggs Bunny,
(Seriously folks this sounds like looooney tunes to me), that is despite the fact that it is altogether real..
I'd like to try to see the US government claim that parents can't homeschool here in the US, they'd never get away with it!
Horse Pucky, it means no such thing. Although the President, Congress and the Courts may twist it the way they are wont to do, to other parts of the Constitution.
The Supremecy clause says:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The critical parts of that are "and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States" and "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Taking the latter first, that is properly parsed as "any Thing in the (Constitution or Laws of any State), not as you seem to believe, (any Thing in the (Constitution) or (Laws of any State). It's State laws and State Constitutions that may be overridden by not only treaties, but also by federal laws and the Federal Constitution. (Provided the laws are an exercise of a delegated federal power of course).
That leads into the first item. The Treaties must be made "under the Authority of the United States". The United States have no authority to trump Constitutional Guarantees, thus they cannot delegate or give away the authority to do so, since they don't have it in the first place.
Not that the 'Rats, and some RINOs won't try of course. In which case, in the final analysis, we have the guarantee of the Second Amendment. Blue helmets make such wonderful aim points.
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.