- This topic has 6 voices and 6 replies.
-
Posts
-
I tried to find a reference to this but wanted to know if anyone else heard it. Fox news said a recent poll stated nearly 46% of Americans aged 20-35 felt that International laws should trump American laws. I'm not 100% on the details but the jist is there. What do you all think about the US being subservient to world laws? Apparently there are a lot of America's future leaders out there that actually believe this.
Well, when America enters into treaties, international agreements become American law (“and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land”, Const. Art. VI). These kinds of agreements, though, should be carefully scrutinized. In his farewell address of 1796, George Washington warned “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world…”. We should pause and ask ourselves why Washington said this.I will make a guess that many of the 46% of those who thought that “international laws should trump American laws” weren't referring to treaties, but were thinking that some central international legislative body should be able to regulate American affairs regardless of whether America wanted such regulation. That's something of an outrage and points to an utter lack of wisdom and knowledge about American history, the Constitution, and common sense. We can only hope that in the 35-50 age demographic the number who believed in this dropped significantly.
It is true that the Constitution enshrines treaties as “the Law of the Land”. But as is famously said,
“the constitution is not a suicide pact”
, and I wish I knew the author of that quote. The Congress also has the ability to withdraw from treaties.I think Phid has it right in that many young people seem to think that there is some code of International Laws that trump US law. So, before we can truly debate this we must define what International Law is. Then, and only then, can we get down to the brass tacks of arguing about whether they outweigh domestic laws.I know a guy who claims the UN Charter outweighs the Constitution and he is dead serious, to my complete and utter dismay. I have to admit that I am one who believes that the US should only agree to and abide by international agreements that are in our own self-interest. There are many treaties that on the face of them seem to go against US interests, but often second and third order effects must be taken into account in determining self-interest. This is one of the reasons I support President Bush's stance on the International Criminal Tribunal. We should steadfastly refuse to sign it because it reduces American sovereignty by legitimizing a foreign authority usurping legitimate American police authority. Therefore, it is patently not in our self-interest to agree to such a pact.In the same manner, I support our participation in the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We have no need of further nuclear testing because we can use computer modeling in the design of new warheads. Additionally, a worldwide moratorium on testing makes cheaters easier to detect. An obvious case of our self-interest being served.
America can't open its mouth on this issue as we pushed for world laws ever since we elected Woodrow Wilson. It's our brainchild more or less, so when we sow the wind we shall reap the whirlwind.
America can't open its mouth on this issue as we pushed for world laws ever since we elected Woodrow Wilson. It's our brainchild more or less, so when we sow the wind we shall reap the whirlwind.
Thats the great thing about being sovereign. We can always change our position in light of our own self-interest. Nations have license to be like the proverbial woman in this respect.I have always thought Wilson was an internationalist flake anyway. ;D
Agree scout – we can and should “open our mouths” on this – whatever our silly former presidents have established. We hact, like any other person or nation, in our own iterests, whatever agreements were made in the past.
