Go to: => TOP Page;   What's New? Page;   ROAD MAP;   Emmaus Ministries Page;   Search Page


Supreme Court Upholds
American Sovereignty Against UN

[COMMENT:  Thanks be to God for a strike by our highest Court for freedom.  I did not think they would come up with such a decision.  There is hope for America!   The United States MUST get out of the UN, and make it clear that we will not put ourselves under any authority which does not recognize the sovereignty of God over all things, including over civil government.  Without God over our government, there is no possibility of maintaining a limited government presided over by a free people.   E. Fox]
 

<<A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision reaffirmed the right of the United States to govern its affairs in accordance with the US Constitution rather than specific provisions of international treaties. In the process, the Court rejected a directive of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Medellín v. Texas not only reaffirmed principles of sovereignty and self-government, but also undercut arguments of international pro-abortion activists that accession to international treaties requires nations to disregard domestic constitutional protections for the unborn.>>

Good news, indeed….let’s hope the decision of the US Supreme Court remains so…..

 April 10, 2008 | Volume 11, Number 17

Dear Colleague,

We report today on a fascinating development in the US understanding of international law. The Supreme Court just rejected a directive the World Court that the US has to abide by specific provisions of a UN treaty even though Congress has not acted on those specific provisions. This is complicated but it is good news for pro-lifers in their battle to keep the courts from using international documents to protect Roe v. Wade.

Spread the word.

Yours sincerely,

Austin Ruse
President


Important Supreme Court Decision Rejects UN High Court over US Treaty Obligations

By Piero A. Tozzi

     (NEW YORK — C-FAM) A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision reaffirmed the right of the United States to govern its affairs in accordance with the US Constitution rather than specific provisions of international treaties. In the process, the Court rejected a directive of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Medellín v. Texas not only reaffirmed principles of sovereignty and self-government, but also undercut arguments of international pro-abortion activists that accession to international treaties requires nations to disregard domestic constitutional protections for the unborn.

     In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court rejected the argument that Texas law enforcement officials were required to notify a Mexican murder suspect of his right under international law to contact his country’s consulate following his arrest.   An order by the ICJ – the United Nations’ “principal judicial organ” headquartered at The Hague, also known as the “World Court” – had directed that the Mexican national was entitled to have his case reviewed by the state court based a provision of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, a treaty which the U.S. has ratified.

     The Bush Administration had urged compliance with the ICJ decision, arguing that the executive branch had authority to direct a state court to give it effect.  Analyzing the separation of powers set forth in the Constitution and case law dating back to the early decades of the Republic, the Supreme Court ruled that the President lacked such authority. 

     As the treaty provision at issue was not “self-executing” – in other words, it did not become automatically binding upon ratification by Congress – it could not bind states without further Congressional action.  The U.S. Constitution requires action by the legislative, not the executive, branch to transform a non-self-executing treaty obligation into domestic law. 

     The principles underlying the U.S. Supreme Court decision have application beyond the immediate case.  In recent years, radical pro-abortion NGOs like the Center for Reproductive Rights have argued that sovereign nations must liberalize abortion laws based on non-binding recommendations of certain UN committees, even though such reinterpretations of treaty obligations are inconsistent with the original language in the treaties.   Abortion advocates were successful in convincing the Supreme Court of Colombia in 2006 to overturn Colombia’s pro-life laws based on such arguments.  A similar challenge is currently pending in Mexico, where the Mexican Supreme Court is weighing the constitutionality of a municipal law passed by Mexico City that allows first trimester abortion.

     The Medellín decision, however, while premised upon the importance of the United States fulfilling its treaty obligations, would not allow outside parties – in this case the ICJ – to dictate how such obligations would be fulfilled.  Rather, the outcome was dictated by reference to domestic constitutional principles.

     Medellín thus marks an additional chapter in the on-going debate over the interrelationship between democratic self-determination and the scope of obligations imposed upon sovereign nations participating in international legal regimes.

For more news visit us at www.c-fam.org

Copyright 2008 Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Go to: => TOP Page;   Constitution;   ROAD MAP