Go to: =>
What's New? Page;
Emmaus Ministries 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.
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
April 10, 2008 | Volume 11, Number 17
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.
Supreme Court Decision Rejects UN High Court over US Treaty Obligations
(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
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
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * *