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 ...
"UnConstitutional. Blatantly. Regardless what Ginsberg and her liberal cohorts opined about it."
I agree, but it is the law of the land. Are you going to have the nads to violate it?
for the skeptics on this forum, there is a lot of information about how much progress the various UN agencies have already made in their efforts to undermine our constitution at this site: http:/www.sovereignty.net
Yes.
Well, at least there's two of us:0)
They did NICE work!
http://sovereignty.net/timeline.html
Bump!
Treaties, in the words of the Constitution, are supreme. The founders did not envision treaties that affected domestic relations and they did not, unfortunately, write appropriate protections into the document.
Someone please ask Levin about this tonight and I'll listen on the air.(It's tape delayed here so I cannot be held accountable)
Treaties are NEVER supreme over the Constitution.
Continue reading the thread and this will become clear to you.
"...provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; ..."
I believe the word "present" is the key here. How many bills are passed by the Senate at O-dark-thirty with only three or four members present? A search for bills passed "unanimously" would probably give a hint since the entire Senate rarely agrees on anything?
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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
This clause has been employed to, among other things, bring about enforcement of desired (by the government) Conservation laws (i.e., Fish and Game type remedies) that the Congress (or even state legislatures) could not, or would not, do on it's own.
This would also be the clause that would permit effect of the United Nations' Small Arms Treaty in this country, which is one of the chief reasons the Left wanted Bolton out at the UN.
This phraseology is pretty clear, and pretty specific. The Founders put this in there for a reason. What, I might ask, would you deign that reason to be?
CA....
Your position is that what the SC rules, constitutional or otherwise, is correct by virtue of their having ruled so? 
This is an important addendum to my post #95.
Our Founders were indeed prescient. Unfortunately, there not omniscient.
CA....
Ahhh, that should read, they were not omniscient!
Ooops!
CA....
Herewith the 2nd paragraph of Article VI
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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
This clause clearly puts treaties on a par with the Constitution and therefor trumps it because to reply Constitutionally requires an Amendment which is a difficult and time-consuming process.
How dare you interrupt the Panic?
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.