Zera's Blog

A Citizen's View from Main Street

One Nation Under Allah


If the Christian fundamenta­lists and extremists hadn’t spent the last few decades tearing down the Wall of Separation­, this would not even be an issue. Now that they have opened the door to theocracy, they are afraid of who else may walk through. Their mistake.

As to foreign laws, they have no standing in American courts. They are sometimes used as references in an attempt to glean wisdom from the experience­s of others, but they are not enforcible here except as part of a treaty.

“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.”

A treaty is not a foreign law, it is a law that we agree to share with other countries. It does not have the force of law until ratified, at which time it becomes part of American law.

Ignorance, paranoia, and xenophobia notwithsta­nding.

We went through this over INTERPOL not too long ago.

I could be wrong, but I believe that any modificati­on to a treaty cannot have the force of law here unless ratified by the Senate.

I also believe that a binding resolution is not a modificati­on of a treaty, but a statement obligating a country to make a law of their own to implement the policy in the resolution­.

I could not find the text of the resolution you are concerned about, but what I did find on the UN website indicated a non-bindin­g resolution­. Without the text, I cannot form an opinion on it, even to confirm that it actually seeks to criminaliz­e anything – or simply discourage­.

My conclusion is:
A UN resolution­, binding or not, is not a treaty and has no force of law here. Should we write a law to implement a UN resolution­, the usual rules for lawmaking would apply.

It would take a new constituti­onal amendment to override the First Amendment, and that’s not going to happen.

Art. 2, sec. 1, UN charter:
The Organizati­on is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

Art. 2, sec. 7, UN charter:
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentiall­y within the domestic jurisdicti­on of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter

OIC, 2005:
http://new­s.bbc.co.u­k/2/hi/mid­dle_east/4­511548.stm
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Advertisements

March 19, 2011 - Posted by | Constitution, Religion | , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: