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.
