I’ve got to admit, it took me a while to catch on to what was really going on.
This is a difficult confession for me to make, because I like to think of myself as someone who “gets it” and can usually see “The Big Picture.”
And yet, the truth is this:
From time to time, there were some things being reported in the news that I found very puzzling, and left me, as the saying goes, “scratching my head.”
For example, I remember hearing that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had expressed her opposition to Mothers’ Day as “sexist,” and had proposed a more androgynous “Parents’ Day.”
“Ok,” I thought, “she’s
nutty as a fruitcake a Liberal. But why is she talking about this?”
And, during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, there were questions about whether or not she believed in using foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution.
I did not understand why such a question was being asked. “Shouldn’t they be more interested,” I thought at the time, “with her views on, for example, abortion and the death penalty?”
Then, last year, there was a fight in the Senate over the Law of the Sea (LOST). I remember reading the following:
Ceding authority to the ISA /International Seabed Authority/ would mean that the sovereignty currently held by the U.S. over the natural resources located on large parts of the continental shelf would be lost.
So, why were some Democrats (including then-Senator John Kerry) eager to pass this treaty? (Btw, the Dems lost on LOST).
And during Obama’s push for gun control, there was talk of the United Nations taking control of guns in the U.S. “What in the world,” I thought, “does the U.N. have to do with our Second Amendment rights?”
Then, two weeks ago, I came across a Wall Street Journal interview with former Senator Jon Kyl, entitled “American Sovereignty and Its Enemies.”
And suddenly, “The Big Picture” became all too horrifyingly clear.
Because all of these news items were, in fact, very connected, by a term called “transnationalism.”
via the WSJ article:
….Transnationalists want to rewrite the laws of war, do away with the death penalty, restrict gun rights and much more—all without having to win popular majorities or heed American constitutional limits. And these advocates are making major strides under an Obama administration that is itself a hotbed of transnational legal thinking….
To be clear, transnationalism isn’t a conspiratorial enterprise. In the legal academy, its advocates have openly stated their aims and means. “International law now seeks to influence political outcomes within sovereign States,” Anne-Marie Slaughter, then dean of Princeton’s public-affairs school, wrote in an influential 2007 essay. International law, she went on, must expand to include “domestic choices previously left to the determination of national political processes” and be able to “alter domestic politics.”
The preferred entry point for importing foreign norms into American law is the U.S. court system. The Yale Law School scholar Howard Koh, a transnationalist advocate, has written that “domestic courts must play a key role in coordinating U.S. domestic constitutional rules with rules of foreign and international law.” Over the past two decades, activist judges have increasingly cited “evolving” international standards to overturn state laws, and Mr. Koh has suggested that foreign norms can be “downloaded” into American law in this manner….
Ms. Slaughter and Mr. Koh held top posts at the State Department during Mr. Obama’s first term, and their tenures coincided with an aggressive push to ratify or recognize as customary law… a host of … progressive causes.
For proof that the transnationalist threat isn’t merely theoretical, look no further than the European Union…. Today over half of the regulations that affect Europeans’ lives are made by administrators in Brussels, not by national legislatures.
These regulations include the EU’s ban, announced in May, on restaurants serving olive oil in traditional glass jugs or terracotta bowls (to protect the “image” of olive oil); the prohibition against insurers charging women drivers lower premiums (sexism); and Commission Regulation 2257/94, otherwise known as the “bendy banana” law, which until recently required farmers to discard irregularly shaped bananas (don’t ask)….
A favorite transnationalist tactic is pushing the U.S. to ratify treaties like the three-decades-old U.N. Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or Cedaw….
Such treaties, Mr. Kyl says, “have a lot of loose language that in the hands of the wrong people can demand far more than was ever intended by the American people.”
Take Cedaw. If the Senate ever ratifies this … the U.S. would become subject to oversight by a Geneva-based committee that requires signatory states to, among other things, “achieve a balance between men and women holding publicly elected positions”; “ensure that media respect women and promote respect for women”; and “modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of . . . stereotyped roles for men and women.”
Would cooking TV shows hosted by female chefs survive Cedaw? How about Philip Roth novels?
Wiping out undesirable patterns of thought may be an easy proposition for illiberal regimes, but not for a constitutional republic.
Wiping out undesirable patterns of thought? “The New Thought Police” Alert!
Here is more about Cedaw, from “Harold Koh’s Transnationalism” by Edward Whelan:
In July 1980, President Carter signed CEDAW on behalf of the United States. The Senate, however, has never given its consent to CEDAW. Pursuant to its terms, CEDAW became effective in September 1981 as an international treaty among those nations that had agreed to it….
Prostitution (China, Feb. 5, 1999)
“288. The Committee is concerned that prostitution, which is often a result of poverty and economic deprivation, is illegal in China.”
“289. The Committee recommends decriminalization of prostitution….
Mother’s Day (Belarus, Feb. 4, 2000)
“361. The Committee is concerned by the continuing prevalence of sex-role stereotypes and by the reintroduction of such symbols as a Mothers’ Day and a Mothers’ Award, which it sees as encouraging women’s traditional roles. It is also concerned whether the introduction of human rights and gender education aimed at countering such stereotyping is being effectively implemented.”
In light of these example, it is obvious that the Left’s push for transnationalism is really an attack on the sovereignty of the United States as a constitutional republic.
Over two hundred years ago, Samuel Adams, one of our Founding Fathers, wrote:
“The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.”
TAMS, 2014 is near.
And, as they say on the Food Network’s Iron Chef America:
“Let the battle begin!”
The Telegraph: EU bottled water ruling joins the ranks of bendy banana law
Investor’s Business Daily: Secretary Kerry Still Pushing Law Of The Sea Treaty
Washington Times: Gun control by the U.N.
American Laws for American Courts: The Threat of Transnationalism