Treaties must not harm U.S. sovereignty
|
| August 9, 2012 |
By U.S. Senator Jim Risch
 Over
the last few years, the U.S. Senate has seen a
number of treaties come up for consideration. As
a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, I have a constitutional
responsibility to consider them carefully and
thoughtfully.
Recently, the committee conducted a number of
hearings on the U.N. Convention of the Law of
the Sea Treaty (LOST), and the Obama
administration has sought to conclude a U.N.
treaty on reducing firearms. Sadly, both of
these treaties, as currently written, would push
the U.S. away from our constitutional
foundations and supplement its authority with
judgments from international courts and U.N.
bureaucracies.
Since the beginning of our Republic, the U.S.
has used treaties to end wars, govern
international affairs and improve our security.
In fact, the U.S. has ratified more than 160
treaties. In and of themselves, treaties are
worthwhile if they advance the interests of the
U.S.
What concerns me most about these new treaties
under consideration is how they seek to subject
U.S. laws and citizens not to the U.S.
Constitution, but to the judgments of
international courts, appointed commissions and
U.N. bureaucracies.
Under our system, the highest law of the land is
the U.S. Constitution.
Often, when the U.S. Senate ratifies a treaty,
Congress must rewrite our domestic laws to
maintain this precedent. I will not vote for any
of these treaties that encroach in any way on
U.S. sovereignty.
Unfortunately, the language in many new treaties
seeks to make them “self-executing,” therefore
bypassing the role of Congress and undermining
the primacy of the U.S. Constitution.
Hence, a U.N. commission could make a
determination and require U.S. law to change to
conform to some international commission.
I will not vote to hand our sovereignty and
constitutional protections over to people who
are not accountable to U.S. citizens and, in
many instances, advance a liberal international
agenda.
For example, in America there is general
agreement a person has a right to self-defense
and a right to use a gun as part of that
self-defense.
Conversely, U.N. organizations argue gun control
is mandated by international human rights law
and there is no right to self-defense. I am
unwilling to approve any treaty that would
jeopardize a U.S. citizen’s right of
self-defense.
In the case of LOST, one provision would force
the U.S. to conform to international
environmental agreements or be subject to
lawsuits in an international court.
The U.S. Senate refused to ratify the Kyoto
Protocol, a binding U.N. agreement to cut
greenhouse gas emissions.
Why should we allow this to be done through the
back door? LOST also requires the “sharing of
wealth” from deep sea drilling with countries
such as Cuba and Venezuela, and this
redistribution of wealth would be decided by a
U.N. commission.
Our laws are developed through elected officials
who serve with the consent of the American
people within a constitutional framework. I do
not believe in transferring these principles to
international bodies that will ultimately
undermine our system and the freedom of all
Americans. |
|
|
|
|
