UN Declaration of Human Rights and the United States


PDA






mp510
April 4, 2006, 11:01 PM
I was wondering if anybody could tell me what the exact status of this document is with the United States. I have always been under the assumption that it not only ran contrary to our Constitution, but that we did not recognize it as a source of law, and never ratified it. However I recently saw material that seemed to suggest that we did subject our selves to it, under advice and consent, when the United States became one of the founding members of the United Nations, and the reason why we do not follow the decleration is that Americans simply disregard it, since we don't actually agree with it, and are not willing to accept our place in the world.

If you enjoyed reading about "UN Declaration of Human Rights and the United States" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
boofus
April 5, 2006, 09:40 AM
Have you taken a look at that piece of garbage? Every person has a right to housing, food, shelter, yadda yadda... Every person has a right to free education. Looks like a socialist nanny state blue print if you ask me.

Recently I heard those un idiots were going to add taxpayer funded abortion to the list of 'human rights'.

There are some places in this country where that UN garbage is in effect and the US Constitution is not, like chocolate city, where everyone expects free handouts regardless of whom they are taken from.

Graystar
April 5, 2006, 10:46 AM
and are not willing to accept our place in the world.
I dunno...I think we’ve accepted our place as world dominatrix quite well. :)

shootinstudent
April 5, 2006, 10:55 AM
Have you taken a look at that piece of garbage? Every person has a right to housing, food, shelter, yadda yadda

Yeah, those crazies, who are they to think that starvation and dire poverty are inhumane?

Seriously, just because something says "UN" doesn't mean it's evil. The UN is a United States invention, and it's not entirely opposed to US ideals. Liberal, foreign, and corrupt, yes...but it's not the anti-christ.

boofus
April 5, 2006, 11:04 AM
Ok I have a right to food, shelter and housing and education. Now give me yours and pay for my ballet lessons.

What you mean you won't because you worked and paid for it and I didn't? Who cares, I still have a right according to the UN and I'll use Kalashnikovs and machetes to get what's 'rightfully' mine if you resist.

There is no such thing as a 'basic human right' that compels you to take something from someone else without permission and compensation and the writers of the Constitution knew that and put it in our 5th Amendment.

Too bad the scum in congress, SCOTUS, and IRS keep chipping away at it with eminent domain and threats of gulag(aka federal prison) if you don't give up your money/property so someone else can have their 'rights'.

TheEgg
April 5, 2006, 12:19 PM
It is not legally binding and there were therefore no signatories. The declaration does not form part of international law.

Therefore the United States, or any other country for that matter, has no legal obligation under this declaration.

Edited to add: Those sections of the universal declaration that pertain to so-called "economic" rights, such as a right to food, shelter, health care, etc., are embodied in a later document called the "International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights", first promulgated in 1966. It was signed but was never ratified by the United States, thus not having the force of law for the U.S.

The "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (1966) was signed AND ratified (in 1992) by the United States, so it is binding. This document does not include the "economic" rights listed above.

IANAL, but from my readings I believe that this is the current state of affairs.

Thefabulousfink
April 5, 2006, 12:42 PM
No document published by the UN has any legal bering on the USA, signed or unsigned. We (our Goverment) chooses to comply with most of them because we have a vested interest in perserving the legitimacy of the UN as a 'global council' where countries can meet to settle disputes and problems. At any point Congress or the President can decide that we will no longer follow a treaty, that is what it means to be "sovereign". The other nations can bitch and moan, impose sanctions, and even go to war, but at the end of the day a treaty is only binding as long as the signers agree to follow it.

Desertdog
April 5, 2006, 12:58 PM
Every person has a right to housing, food, shelter,
I believe that every person has a right to the housing, food, shelter that they can obtain, from their abilities to earn.

This belief does not prevent helping the sick and disabled, only the able and unwilling to work.

shootinstudent
April 5, 2006, 01:04 PM
There is no such thing as a 'basic human right' that compels you to take something from someone else without permission and compensation and the writers of the Constitution knew that and put it in our 5th Amendment.

Please show me where in the UN declaration there is a right to take stuff from other people to pay for your own needs?

Where does it say "You may not be asked to work for these things, and will not have to provide any service in return for them whatsoever"?

That's your idea, not the document's. There is no reason on earth why we can't conclude that the best way to give people food and shelter is with a strong economy, wherein work and competition give everyone the opportunity to live well.

RaggedClaws
April 5, 2006, 01:42 PM
Positive rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_rights) are a crock. They should be called "entitlements", not "rights".

Ieyasu
September 2, 2006, 06:55 PM
Unfortunately I had the TV on long enough today to see a commercial directed at kids for "Youth for Human Rights International." It mentioned one of the articles in the UN's Universal Declaration of Rights and urged its viewers to see the rest of the "rights" at their website (http://www.youthforhumanrights.org/introduction/udhr_full.html).

Well, of course I couldn't resist. :barf:

Ironically the ad was shown after some cartoon that centered around George Washington fighting for independence.

This one is a beaut: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." (Reminds me of the Alien and Sedition Acts.)

1911Tuner
September 2, 2006, 07:17 PM
Here's my read on it...

They want everyone's rights to be what "they" (the entity) decree as a right...and the entity is made up in large part by representatives dictatorships or leftist-leaning nations...such as France...or nations whose butt we kicked somewhere along the way...like Germany...who are opposed to
the United States of America as being a world leader. The entity wants all to be equal...somehow. The entity wants everything to be "fair" and life just isn't fair. Never has been and never will be.

The entity's idea of fair is to drain America's resources in order to feed, house, school, provide free medical care, and serve/protect people whose
corrupt governments aren't willing to spend their own resources to that end,
preferring instead to rob the tills to enrich the "Kings" and procure armament
and military might to either murder and oppress their own...or another smaller/weaker nation that borders it.

We send food and medical supplies to The Sudan...The stuff is sold or traded for weapons. Ethiopia? Sold...and palatial mansions built, or blown on multi-million dollar weddings for sons and daughters of the Ruling Elite.

So...The UN council votes to spend 50 billion dollars on whatever "plan" they have...and guess who they're counting on to pay 90% of the tab. Here's a clue. You don't need to invade a country with overwhelming force in order to wreck it. You can bleed it to death over time. All you have to do is get the majority vote to okay opening the vein.

The UN isn't evil? The UN isn't dedicated to the ultimate destruction of America as we know it? Bring us down to their level instead of working to raise themselves to ours...but that's just my read. You may see if differently.
Nancy Pelosi and Chuckie Schumer and Teddy Kennedy, et al all do...

Rant off...

foob
September 2, 2006, 07:39 PM
No document published by the UN has any legal bering on the USA, signed or unsigned.

Actually, treaties signed by the US with other countries have legal bearing in the US. There has been numerous case law where the judiciary, including the supreme court, have cited international treaties that decided their ruling.

Article III Section 2 of the US constitution:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority

We (our Goverment) chooses to comply with most of them because we have a vested interest in perserving the legitimacy of the UN as a 'global council' where countries can meet to settle disputes and problems. At any point Congress or the President can decide that we will no longer follow a treaty, that is what it means to be "sovereign". The other nations can bitch and moan, impose sanctions, and even go to war, but at the end of the day a treaty is only binding as long as the signers agree to follow it.

Just like the president may choose to not comply with a treaty, you can choose not to follow the law. Same thing, different consequences. Iran may be afraid of sanctions and obey a treaty, but the big dog USA may choose not to obey. You probably follow the law better than Mel Gibson or other American royalty.

You can replace your entire quote with individuals and US law and it would still be applicable. Laws are laws, anybody (country or individual) can choose to follow them or not.

Firethorn
September 2, 2006, 08:21 PM
Well, I have no problems with it until article 22

ARTICLE 22... Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
It's not necessarily horrible, but it seems unwieldy to my grasp of american english.

You see, 'social security' means something specific to americans, specifically a form of welfare that I'm largely opposed to. Depending on how you read it, it can simply mean that government is supposed to act as support, and not arbitrarily change the rules to ruin people.

But then it just goes nuts:
ARTICLE 23... (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Part 1&2 is ok, but part 3? Is supplimenting necessary if the guy only works 5 hours/week? As for part 4, well, I think article 20, part 2 covers it(you can't be forced to join the union).

ARTICLE 24... Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Is that to be forced onto people, or can they voluntarily work overtime?

ARTICLE 25... (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Seems to main article that calls for a required welfare program. Some of those I don't have a hard objection to, I'm willing to help support the sick&disabled. The plain unemployed is a different matter.

ARTICLE 26... (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Hmm... Makes elementary 'education', not school mandatory. Gives the parents the right to choose the education for their children. Part 2 is wierd, seems like an indoctrination requirement, but on the other hand would hit the schools in the middleast teaching hatred harder than the states.

Hmm... Out of 30 articles, I have issues with 4 of them, only having major problems with 2 of them. Another is so vague to be relativly useless.

foob
September 2, 2006, 08:46 PM
Is that to be forced onto people, or can they voluntarily work overtime?

A person doesn't need to exercise his rights... ...:banghead:

Old Fuff
September 2, 2006, 11:09 PM
Firethorn:

What you quoted was classic socialism theory. A Utopian World - but not necessarily in practice. As you read the document it should become clear that the UN is nothing more then an advocate of Socialism, which is understandable if you look at the governments that make up most of its membership. It is also the reason we will never really belong...

Unless one is a Socialist or Communist - or at least thinks like one.

Kim
September 2, 2006, 11:37 PM
I do not agree with any of that Socialistic document. NONE. Those are not rights as understood in a FREE SOCIETY such as the USA. Now some want them to be but they would have to shread the Constitution even further or the USSC would just have to invent new rights. Oh yea they have already done so. I do not see any of those things were endowed to me by a Creator. Only a man made system of positive socialist thinking could possibly think I have a right to such things. I don't and I do not want such a right. If I demand those rights be protected by a government that would mean tyranny and a loss of FREEDOM. Unless you are a liberal in the modern sense this type of thinking is almost anti-christ in thought and certainly in implementation.

toivo
September 3, 2006, 12:33 AM
I believe that every person has a right to the housing, food, shelter that they can obtain, from their abilities to earn. This belief does not prevent helping the sick and disabled, only the able and unwilling to work.
You assume that there's always a functioning economic system in place with plenty of employment for those that want/need it. That just isn't the case in many places in the world, where it is possible to work very hard and still die of starvation. This notion that the world is full of people who'd rather starve than work is not accurate.

taliv
September 3, 2006, 01:20 AM
"they're not evil, they're just too stupid to be good"

StrikeFire83
September 3, 2006, 02:08 AM
The way I see it United States membership in the UN is tactically stupid. American citizens are supposed to be overjoyed to be the majority subsidizers of an organization that’s very existence is made to be a counter to US power. For some reason, we are expected to care more about members of a mythical “global community” than our own countrymen. Add to that the fact that the UN is an unmitigated failure at performing the duties it was designed to.

1. International Diplomacy – Bilateral or regional diplomacy has and will continue to be the only true venue for international politics. It makes no sense to involve all 300+ nations in the affairs of a specific region. Why should I give a **** if Botswana’s officials are unhappy with my country’s provisions to protect its own borders or its policies on small arms?

2. International Aid – I think we can all agree that bureaucracy is the enemy of efficiency. Why then do we rely on a bloated international organization to render aid? This corrupt body has embezzled literally BILLIONS of American dollars. While cents on the dollar may get to the people who need them, Kojo Annan drives around in a Mercedes.

3. War Crimes – The laughable “world court” is incompetent and slow to action. It has questionable jurisdiction. I seem to remember that the Nuremberg trials, though not without their problems, got to the root of the matter of Nazi atrocities much better than anything the UN has done.

Does anybody have any polling numbers as to what portion of the American population even wants to remain engaged in the UN at all?

Kim
September 3, 2006, 02:11 AM
International Aid should be taken from the UN and given to Wal-Mart to run. At least the water would get there.

Green Lantern
September 3, 2006, 10:49 AM
Y'all HAVE read this right? -
http://www.iansa.org/issues/UNhumanrights.htm

Yep...according to this wacko (an American I'm ashamed to say), if we shoot down a criminal who tried to kill us, WE'RE "human rights violators."

How the :cuss: does an I.A.N.S.A member get an official positon at the UN? Can you IMAGINE the liberal uproar and "gnashing of teeth" if Wayne LaPierre was the "Special Rapporteur" and he concluded that it was the CRIMINAL who was the rights violator and deserved whatever he got? :neener:

dragongoddess
September 3, 2006, 12:02 PM
I just love it when I see fun loving Christains and Bible Thumpers getting all riled up with the UN. Seems to me that one of the Laws of Moses was that the poor could enter your fields and take from it a meal. That was the Law. Of course if we were to bring it into the 21st century It would mean that a poor hungery person could come into your house fix a meal, consume it and then leave. That would be the Law. There was nothing in it about dishes so I guess you will have to do their dishes for them.

What I'm saying is that whatever religon or system of government you desire we must follow one prinicipal. Those that have and can share, should do so. Religon or not there is Karma and that saying. What is it? There but for the Grace of God go I. Something like that. Well that s about it for the moment. This is your conscience taking a break now to visit with the ID nexdoor.

lionking
September 3, 2006, 12:12 PM
The UN has also decreed that personal protection is not a individual right.......phftt!!!:scrutiny:

http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/salw_hr_report_2006.pdf

Fosbery
September 3, 2006, 12:18 PM
I'm sure all those Africans who die from starvation are just too lazy to do anything about it :rolleyes:

carlrodd
September 3, 2006, 01:37 PM
there are no such things as human rights. humans are not 'entitled' to anything. if we are lucky, we live in a country that affords us those rights, and protects them. the idea that every person is entitled to certain things is as dangerous as the idea that every person should be able to vote.

now in the US, we have an arrangement that DOES afford us many 'rights', and traditionally, those rights have been protected(not perfectly of course, but better than anywhere else historically).

the UN has taken this dangerous idea of human 'rights', and broadcast it world-wide, so now every soul on the face of the earth is expecting something. the irony is, that the organization that is proclaiming these rights has the most laughable record in securing them for anyone.

toivo
September 3, 2006, 02:05 PM
the idea that every person is entitled to certain things is as dangerous as the idea that every person should be able to vote.
Yeah, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," blah blah blah. Democracy, etc. Evil concepts, those.

Number 6
September 3, 2006, 03:47 PM
Have you taken a look at that piece of garbage? Every person has a right to housing, food, shelter, yadda yadda... Every person has a right to free education. Looks like a socialist nanny state blue print if you ask me.

The reason for the inclusion of economic rights into the Declaration has to do with Cold War Politics. When the Declaration was written the United States only wanted to include social and political rights, i.e. freedom of speech, religion etc. The Soviet Union on the other hand only wanted to include economic rights i.e. water, healthcare, shelter, etc. The Declaration therefore included both, but it is not binding. With the Cold War over there has been a push in Human Rights scholarship to reexamine the validity of economic rights. This does not mean the introduction of socialism, or that anyone is going to force the US to do much of anything. The cases that economic rights advocates are looking at are places like Bolivia and Zimbabwe. Remember, access to clean water in most of the world is a real issue, and government policies can threaten access to water tremendously, as in Bolivia.

Recently I heard those un idiots were going to add taxpayer funded abortion to the list of 'human rights'.

I think you need to cite a source. My guess is that maybe someone proposed such an idea, but that is a far cry from the UN adopting it. This could be some NGO, a liberal country, or a bureaucrat, that wants such to place this as a right.

There are some places in this country where that UN garbage is in effect and the US Constitution is not, like chocolate city, where everyone expects free handouts regardless of whom they are taken from.

Again please cite a source. How is New Orleans under UN legal jurisdiction and not under the US constitution?

No document published by the UN has any legal bering on the USA, signed or unsigned. We (our Goverment) chooses to comply with most of them because we have a vested interest in perserving the legitimacy of the UN as a 'global council' where countries can meet to settle disputes and problems. At any point Congress or the President can decide that we will no longer follow a treaty, that is what it means to be "sovereign". The other nations can bitch and moan, impose sanctions, and even go to war, but at the end of the day a treaty is only binding as long as the signers agree to follow it.

This is not exactly true. If the United States signs an international agreement then such an agreement then trumps domestic law, but not constitutional law. So if the United States signed a treaty and did not abide by it, I could sue the government to comply. The government is then obligated to abide by the agreement. If the United States decided to back out of a treaty then it could do so, but there is a certain process that it must comply by, usually dictated in the treaty. Different treaties have different enforcement mechanisms. Some dictate embargoes or sanctions, others dictate only rhetorical punishments, while many have no enforcement mechanisms.

2. International Aid – I think we can all agree that bureaucracy is the enemy of efficiency. Why then do we rely on a bloated international organization to render aid? This corrupt body has embezzled literally BILLIONS of American dollars. While cents on the dollar may get to the people who need them, Kojo Annan drives around in a Mercedes.

I think you need some evidence to back up such a statement. I've actually seen UN aid and USAID aid in action. Both are bureaucracies and were pretty effective at what they did.

3. War Crimes – The laughable “world court” is incompetent and slow to action. It has questionable jurisdiction. I seem to remember that the Nuremberg trials, though not without their problems, got to the root of the matter of Nazi atrocities much better than anything the UN has done.

Which trials are incompetent or slow to act? Kosovo, Rwanda, Liberia, Uganda? There are many logistical and pragmatic reasons why certain trials take longer than others, that have little to do with who is conducting the trial.

How the does an I.A.N.S.A member get an official positon at the UN? Can you IMAGINE the liberal uproar and "gnashing of teeth" if Wayne LaPierre was the "Special Rapporteur" and he concluded that it was the CRIMINAL who was the rights violator and deserved whatever he got?

The UN is one of the few organizations that includes NGOs. This does not give them the same status as sovereign states. In theory the NRA could be allowed a similar seat as the IANSA. The UN also allows businesses to have input as in policy as well.

there are no such things as human rights. humans are not 'entitled' to anything. if we are lucky, we live in a country that affords us those rights, and protects them. the idea that every person is entitled to certain things is as dangerous as the idea that every person should be able to vote.

Socrates, Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Rawls, Habermas, and many other scholars disagree with you. Most legal traditions also acknowledge some inherent human rights.

Kim
September 3, 2006, 04:33 PM
I wish religious Bible thumpers would quit using their interpretation of the Bible as a way of pushing an economic system for a secular state. After all we do have separation of church and state. Or do we? Do not push theological liberalism down my throat or your religious based Social Justice theory. :neener:

Aguila Blanca
September 3, 2006, 05:09 PM
Here's my read on it...

They want everyone's rights to be what "they" (the entity) decree as a right...and the entity is made up in large part by representatives dictatorships or leftist-leaning nations...such as France...or nations whose butt we kicked somewhere along the way...like Germany...who are opposed to
the United States of America as being a world leader. The entity wants all to be equal...somehow. The entity wants everything to be "fair" and life just isn't fair. Never has been and never will be.

The entity's idea of fair is to drain America's resources in order to feed, house, school, provide free medical care, and serve/protect people whose
corrupt governments aren't willing to spend their own resources to that end,
preferring instead to rob the tills to enrich the "Kings" and procure armament
and military might to either murder and oppress their own...or another smaller/weaker nation that borders it.

We send food and medical supplies to The Sudan...The stuff is sold or traded for weapons. Ethiopia? Sold...and palatial mansions built, or blown on multi-million dollar weddings for sons and daughters of the Ruling Elite.

So...The UN council votes to spend 50 billion dollars on whatever "plan" they have...and guess who they're counting on to pay 90% of the tab. Here's a clue. You don't need to invade a country with overwhelming force in order to wreck it. You can bleed it to death over time. All you have to do is get the majority vote to okay opening the vein.

The UN isn't evil? The UN isn't dedicated to the ultimate destruction of America as we know it? Bring us down to their level instead of working to raise themselves to ours...but that's just my read. You may see if differently.
Nancy Pelosi and Chuckie Schumer and Teddy Kennedy, et al all do...

Rant off...
10-4 and roger that

The U.N. is a decadent organization whose only genuine purpose is to serve as a shining example of corruption. I cannot understand why the United States continues to belong, and to allow those maggots to maintain their headquarters in NYC.

Probably because it's easier to keep an eye on them here than it would be in Geneva or Helsinki ...

57Coastie
September 5, 2006, 04:58 PM
foob says, and quite correctly:

"Actually, treaties signed by the US with other countries have legal bearing in the US. There has been numerous case law where the judiciary, including the supreme court, have cited international treaties that decided their ruling.

Article III Section 2 of the US constitution:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority."

One might even go further and take a look at Article VI of our Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

57Coastie
September 5, 2006, 08:51 PM
A forum member posted:

"there are no such things as human rights. humans are not 'entitled' to anything"

On July 4, 1776, the founders of our great nation placed their very lives at risk as traitors, and signed their names to a document which told the world why they were rebelling against their king.

They gave the reasons for their couragous act, beginning with:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"Endowed by their Creator..." Not graciously bestowed by a king, president or legislature. The U. S. Constitution, which soon followed, would not have been ratified had its drafters not promised that it would be promptly amended to spell out those "unalienable Rights," since the Declaration of Independence only mentioned three, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," and the people of this new nation wanted it in writing -- a solemn obligation that we would forevermore have those unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.:)

The drafters of our Constitution kept their promise and the Bill of Rights went into force -- ten amendments, one of which, the second, is of particular interest to our members.

1911Tuner
September 5, 2006, 09:12 PM
Coastie...Amen!

Gunfire
September 5, 2006, 09:20 PM
Human rights
A forum member posted:

"there are no such things as human rights. humans are not 'entitled' to anything"

On July 4, 1776, the founders of our great nation placed their very lives at risk as traitors, and signed their names to a document which told the world why they were rebelling against their king.

They gave the reasons for their couragous act, beginning with:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"Endowed by their Creator..." Not graciously bestowed by a king, president or legislature.

+1

I was wondering when someone was going to say it. Truths, Self-evident, All Men, Equal. I can't find the part where it says just US citizens. If we want to get back to being the goodguys in the world instead of the bully maybe we should take a lesson in what our fore-fathers gave to us and "All Men".

ConstitutionCowboy
September 5, 2006, 09:45 PM
Regardless of who started it, it has become dangerous. It has survived on eggs for quite some time, but now it has smelled meat. The goose is destined for the dinner plate, folks, and we're it!

The UN will bleed us dry and kill the golden goose. I'm damn glad this goose has a gun. I won't be turned into foie gras or loose my feathers to some ne'er-do-well destined to starve and freeze to death anyway. He goes alone or just quicker trying to take me with him and failing. Let him emulate our success and take care of himself. That's a better choice for him.

Woody

"Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom: Magic elixirs of life brought to you courtesy of the Constitution for the United States of America. Terrorism, Poverty, and Subjugation: World dominating poisons of life; brought to you courtesy of the United Nations". B.E.Wood

Gunfire
September 5, 2006, 10:51 PM
This looks like a 'bar' for all men (countries) to strive for. I see no funding requirements or where any government is required to do anything from this declaration. Correct me if I'm wrong. Don't we already have those 'human rights' here in the US?

I agree the general funding of the UN is extremely lopsided and needs correcting. But the UN can be a valuble organization consider the first gulf war. It all came together to protect a member country. THAT'S how it's supposed to work. When a wrong is 'really' wrong most all men of the world can agree.

Art Eatman
September 5, 2006, 11:11 PM
Gunfire, you made reference to the first Gulf War. That 1991 support was the first of its kind since 1950 and Korea. The rest of the time, the U.S. has pretty much been chastised as a Bad Guy by the majority of the members. But, what the heck. I guess every 40 years or so, we deserve some payback for the money we've spent on the people who vote against us...

Art

GunnySkox
September 6, 2006, 12:21 AM
The way I see it (no, I'm no constitutional/US History scholar. In fact, I'm a moron. Read what follows with that in mind), the three rights listed as among those endowed 'pon all these equally created men are not positive rights (e.g., "you have the right TO xyz") but, like the rights of the people listed in the BOR, they're.. uh.. whatever the term for the opposite of a positive right is, (e.g., you are to be FREE FROM xyz).

Let me lay it out:

LIFE - You, as an innocent (that is, not guilty of any crime (that is, an activity which infringes upon the rights of another)), have the right not to be murdered. The right to provide for yourself, within the boundaries of your rights (that is, not stepping on others' rights), the right to be free from thievery of your livelihood.

LIBERTY - You, as an innocent, have the right to be free from constraint or oppression or imprisonment or from being forcibly compelled to anything against your will. (obviously, in the context of a governed society, there are limits to this; dues to be paid for membership in that society, which are decided by the members of that society through a government)

PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS - You, as an innocent, are to be free from being forced to think or live a certain way; you are free to seek happiness where you will find it, within the boundaries of your rights.


~GnSx
"Wait.. where we goin' with this?"
"I don't remember."
"Huh. So, anydangway.."

LAK
September 6, 2006, 07:50 AM
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
It is noteworthy that the word "notwithstanding" means regardless - nevertheless.

Keep in mind the words of our illustrious president to the UN General Assembly in 2001:

"We must press on with our agenda for peace and prosperity in every land".

And I am sure they are.

----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

If you enjoyed reading about "UN Declaration of Human Rights and the United States" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!