Wow. Did you even read the articles? I should say that my concerns over these things didn’t just start with the currect adminstration, but it is greatly enhanced. There are those who believe that controlling the population is legitimate and infanticide is one path to that. What do you think abortion is? Just a “women’s rights” issue? For many yes, but for global warming, over-population believers then it’s a means to an end. The more socialism takes effect, the more government controls anything that may negatively affect the “collective”.
You don’t think that there are those who have gone after homeschooled children and who believe that religious families are a threat to their own children? With or without this or any other treaty? Just look up north to Canada and you can find it.
BTW, in Reid v. Covert it was just an agreement between us and the UK- not a Treaty.
From Forbes online-not exactly your “right-wing conspiracy theorists” – is a very good article on three Treaties in process that are being watched (page two talks about Ag. 21) and explains, as did the Blaze article, how Executive Orders create “soft laws” that bring in parts of Treaties not even agreed to yet. Quite a bit of a treaty can be put into action without a treaty being approved with NGOs like ICLEI:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/10/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-are-our-2nd-amendment-rights-part-of-the-deal/
How about Administrations who pass Executive Orders when they can’t get laws and treaties through Congress or Senate?
How about Administrations who use regulation agencies, like the EPA, to enforce personal agendas when they can’t get things through Congress?
How about an Administration who tells the Justice department not to enforce current American law, presumably because the Executive branch doesn’t agree with it and can’t cause changes to be made within the Congress?
How about a court system that uses international law in their considerations when deciding their cases? We have current Justices who support doing just that.
See Graham v. Florida; while giving lip service to the Eight Amendment, the written opinion mentions more about international opinions and law (specifically the UNCRC) more than the 8th Amendment.
http://www.parentalrights.org/vertical/Sites/%7BC49108C5-0630-467E-9B9B-B1FA31A72320%7D/uploads/%7BDA5C4830-4826-4D27-A85F-67A0BE99F4AD%7D.PDF
The Constitution is only as safe we the people who are knowledgeable about liberty; it’s only as strong as those people who are elected and those Justices that are then appointed by and approved by those aforesaid elected people. It cannot remain strong without vigilance. Things that are a threat may be implemented more slowly, but that doesn’t mean they won’t happen.
We have people who truly believe in handing the Sovereignty of this country to others. That our Constitution is “living”. If these people who have been elected, and these Justices who have been appointed by them, don’t see certain laws and treaties as conflicting with the Constitution than there’s no conflict, right? These Treaties could supersede our States ability to engage in judicial review (which was implied by Justice Holmes in the Missouri v Holland case in 1920).
Why push for a Treaty, pass it through the Senate if you don’t expect, or at least hope, that it will be enforced?
You know, there were so many nay-sayers in England when many were concerned about entering the EU in relation to their sovereignty; well now we see that England has lost her sovereignty as has others, like Greece for example and even Germany-who is the EU’s piggybank (but the other countries don’t put anything into it-just the Germans).
There are people on the ground and in the trenches (like the aforementioned ADF), fighting against those who would gladly restrict Our Constitution and Sovereignty; including homeschooling freedom and other parental rights-you tell them directly that they aren’t dealing with challenges and threats that are very real.
Personally I wanted to get out of the UN and get the UN out of New York a long time ago.
The concept of G-d-Given rights? How quaint…The government giveth and the government taketh away is the scripture of the secularists in and the administrators of government.
From a long, interesting-though dry- article from Yale Journal of International Law; where our future lawyers are trained: http://www.yjil.org/print/volume-37-issue-1/international-law-at-home-enforcing-treaties-in-us-courts
Our proposals each offer a path toward more effective enforcement of Article II treaties in U.S. courts. They are only valuable, of course, if the United States has an interest in abiding by the international legal commitments it makes. We recognize that there is an ongoing debate about this proposition. Although proving the proposition that it is in the United States’s interest to abide by its international law commitments is not a goal of this Article, we note at least two reasons to believe it is true. First, when treaties provide reciprocal benefits, the United States clearly gains from the enforcement of the agreements by other parties to the treaty…—the ability to enforce treaty-based rights abroad is essential. But other countries are less likely to observe their treaty obligations if the United States fails to live up to its side of the bargain. A private right of action is often the best way to guarantee this compliance, for the federal judiciary is in a unique position to press the political branches to honor the country’s international commitments, particularly when those commitments benefit individuals. Second, regardless of the value one may place on any given international agreement—or the benefit that the United States receives from that particular treaty—the United States has a broader and deeper interest in demonstrating its capacity to abide by the commitments it makes. Until the United States chooses to end an international legal commitment (which it ordinarily can do by simply providing notice to this effect), it is obligated to comply with the agreement as a matter of international law. Failure to comply with such obligations makes the United States a law violator potentially subject to sanctions and—likely most harmful of all—an unreliable treaty partner. For these reasons, even those who dislike or disapprove of particular international agreements should wish to see the United States live up to the commitments that it has made.