Why should we be concerned if American courts consider international law norms to be binding within our borders? Today on Home School Heartbeat, Michael Farris looks at the constitutional considerations of this question.
Michael Farris:
There’s a fundamental difference between the way the United States and other nations apply international law. In virtually every other nation, a ratified treaty creates nothing more than a political responsibility that’s unenforceable by the courts if the political branches take no action to implement the treaty’s provisions. The U.S. is unique in forfeiting the right of self-government to ratified treaties. So why would we also allow unratified treaties to be binding on our nation?
The courts’ application of customary international law is the latest movement in the federal judiciary to advance the left’s political agenda. They use the courts because their goals cannot be achieved through the legislative process.
There is already legal precedent for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to be applied as customary international law in an entirely domestic case. A New York federal court ruled that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was binding in law on the United States because it is customary international law, even though we have not ratified this treaty. And very recently, the Supreme Court echoed this same idea in its juvenile death penalty case, citing the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child for justification for their decision. These actions are little more than judicial tyranny, which needs to be stopped. I’m Mike Farris.
