1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

UN Declaration of Human Rights and the United States

Discussion in 'Legal' started by mp510, Apr 4, 2006.

  1. mp510

    mp510 Well-Known Member

    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.
  2. boofus

    boofus Guest

    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.
  3. Graystar

    Graystar Well-Known Member

    I dunno...I think we’ve accepted our place as world dominatrix quite well. :)
  4. shootinstudent

    shootinstudent Well-Known Member

    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.
  5. boofus

    boofus Guest

    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'.
  6. TheEgg

    TheEgg Well-Known Member

    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.
  7. Thefabulousfink

    Thefabulousfink Well-Known Member

    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.
  8. Desertdog

    Desertdog Well-Known Member

    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.
  9. shootinstudent

    shootinstudent Well-Known Member

    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.
  10. RaggedClaws

    RaggedClaws Well-Known Member

    Positive rights are a crock. They should be called "entitlements", not "rights".
  11. Ieyasu

    Ieyasu Well-Known Member

    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.)
  12. 1911Tuner

    1911Tuner Moderator Emeritus

    UN Rights

    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...
  13. foob

    foob Well-Known Member

    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

    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.
  14. Firethorn

    Firethorn Well-Known Member

    Well, I have no problems with it until article 22

    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:
    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).

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

    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.

    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.
  15. foob

    foob Well-Known Member

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

    Old Fuff Well-Known Member


    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.
  17. Kim

    Kim Well-Known Member

    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.
  18. toivo

    toivo Well-Known Member

    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.
  19. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    "they're not evil, they're just too stupid to be good"
  20. StrikeFire83

    StrikeFire83 Well-Known Member

    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?

Share This Page