Posted on 04/26/2017 6:08:49 PM PDT by blueyon
The United Nations warned the Trump administration earlier this year that repealing ObamaCare without providing an adequate replacement would be a violation of multiple international laws, according to a new report.
Though the Trump administration is likely to ignore the U.N. warning, The Washington Post reported the Office of the U.N. High Commission on Human Rights in Geneva sent an "urgent appeal" on Feb 2.
The Post reported that the confidential, five-page memo cautioned that the repeal of the Affordable Care Act would put the U.S. “at odds with its international obligations.”
The warning was sent to the State Department and reportedly said the U.N. expressed “serious concern” about the prospective loss of health coverage for 30 million people, that in turn could violate “the right to social security of the people in the United States.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Ditto that
Where the hell is the un on our representatives in our governments squandering of the social security dollars that have been diligently saved for them by unavoidable payroll deduction. Glad these assholes are looking out for my best interests.
The Un should be told to go ..... itself.
Sounds like the UN is violating the national sovereignty of the US.
[[Sounds like the UN is violating the national sovereignty of the US.]]
Exactly- maybe they should be arrested for violating our sovereignty-
LOL!
Kick the UN out of New York AND the US then pick a barren spot in Mid America, out on the open Plain and build a Giant Facility, complete with underground bunkers, housing, shopping etc and move the US Capitol there.
Good way to strip the DC suburbs of thousands of Libs and the transportation infrastructure would make the DC Metro area a nice place to reside.
Why would Trump want to do that?
If there was ever any question as to whether the Obama cabal and the globalist UN where the same entity, let this put that to rest. Tipped your hand, did you?
Can’t wait to hear Nikki’s response....
The US is not under the UN’s whimsical notions. Halt all funding to the UN until they come to what little senses they have
The US is not under the UN’s whimsical notions. Halt all funding to the UN until they come to what little senses they have
Yes, it would.
We set the UN up as the ultimate authority during WWII. The US (and other of the major Allied powers) have had an understanding that the UN couldn’t charge them and make it stick.
That may be changing. The International Court has precedent in claiming jurisdiction of sovereign states, and making other world powers take action. Now that usually means the US goes in, but they could start to shop around.
Wrong. Treaties supersede all American law. That has been settled for a long time.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Disagre
The second paragraph of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states: “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.”
This language has sometimes been misinterpreted by people who claim that an international treaty therefore can effectively override provisions in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. That is not the way that the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the language of Article VI.
The U. S. Supreme Court in Reid vs. Covert , 354 US1 found that: “no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.” The Court also stated that: “…an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution.”
No International Treaty can supersede the US Constitution.
That has not been the way it has been handled.
Remember, most of what we call “law” is really “What have we done before?” In this case, settled law has been that treaties once ratified are considered binding even if they are in conflict with local/state/national laws.
Not saying I like that, but that there is a precedent.
In the case of the UN, they claim jurisdiction on all member nations. We (the US) and other allied nations set that up after WWII. That is why the US bombed Serbia for violating “International Law”.
I doubt the Serbs thought it was legal.
There have been and will continue to be numerous attempts to subvert our Constitution. Activist Judges will see their influence shortened permanently pretty soon.
Justice Black pointed out in that case that: The concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperant when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very dangerous doctrine and if allowed to flourish would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our Article VI of the Constitution only provides that treaties can be considered equal to U.S. statutes and laws when considered by the Court. However, they cannot be used to alter the U.S. Constitution, or to deny Constitutional rights to American citizens, or to the American states. Therefore, even if the U.N. Small Arms Treaty is finalized, signed by the President, and ratified by the U. S. Senate, it would not take away the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms under the provisions of the 2nd Amendment to 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.