Michael Farris:
Legal authorities who claim that unratified treaties such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child should be binding on the United States base their claims on the concept of the law of nations. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.”

The Founders’ view of the law of nations was different in two principal ways from the postmodern view that has emerged today. First, the law of nations was primarily based on a Christian perspective of natural law rather than a positivist understanding. This body of rules depended on the fundamental principles of the universe. Today, however, legal scholars are attempting to interpret the law of nations as the positive laws that nations and bodies such as the UN establish to govern themselves.

Second, for the Founders, the law of nations was limited to international affairs, having no application to how a government treats its own citizens. This, too, is changing through modern legal trends. The Supreme Court is using international sources to guide its decisions. A well-known example is the Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, when it used international law to interpret the U.S. Constitution and “discovered” a new constitutional right to engage in homosexual conduct.

Tomorrow we’ll look at the potential disaster for families that lies in the potential application of the law of nations. I’m Mike Farris.