International Law vs. the American Constitution
International Law vs. the American ConstitutionThis article examines the implications of three recent cases. These are:"« The UN condemning the Australian Government for developing a uranium mine near an Australian National Park.The traditional American view and it's Modern RivalThe argument of American founders was not a sentimental plea for "participation"; the declaration speaks of consent to the "just powers of government" not to its every particular actions. The point of emphasizing constraints of law and legislative consent is that government remains at some level of unavoidable coercion, one submits to lawful government, understanding that everyone else will be bound to the same law. Americans were ready to recognize that law required force to make it effective. Only 5 years after the end of the Revolutionary War they adopted a new constitution precisely to assure a more reliable force to American Government. The argument for the new Constitution as suppose to the article of confederation was that reliable common policies required a common government with it's own army, it's own source of revenue, and it's own powers to make and enforce laws. The way they saw this was since
The founding generations and its successors saw that some sort of international understanding is actually required by the doctorate of government by consent since such government can only be effective if outside powers refrain from interfering in it. When James Madison served as the Secretary of State under President Jefferson he thought it would be worthwhile to publish a formal inquiry on the law of nations. At any rate, the problems of the EU are for the moment other people's problems. In addition they have The European Court of Justice in Luxemburg. The EU however, is possibly the most extreme instance of a large trend that now does threaten to engulf the US, being that by classical principals of international laws the US would have no clear right to object to how European States decide to share their governing powers with neighboring states. So when the British police arrested Pinnochette, the Chilean government immediately protested and assisted Pinnochette with his legal battle in the British Courts. It only relies on the governmental machinery of each individual member state for ground level enforcement and implementation of the EU policies. It can'tK due to the fact that some of the member states are committed to the NATO alliance and others are pledged to neutrality. Pinochettes Revenge:In this part of the article, it focuses on the judicial case brought upon former Chilean president Augusto Pinnochette by a Spanish magistrate wishing to try him for human rights abuse committed by the Chilean government while he was head of state. That was not quite the view of the founders. Instead it has a central bureaucracy in Brussels called the European Commission that elaborates their regulations. The Constitution provided that the treaties adopted by the United States along with federal statutes would be the "supreme law of the land" but it also stipulated that congress should have the power to define and punish the offenses against the laws of the nations. It mentions that the EU has extremely ambitious regulatory agendas reaching deeply into the internal policies of the member states yet it has no common Army. He was concerned with such matters as security guarantees for diplomats and for neutral ships on the high seas.
Common topics in this essay:
President Jefferson,
American Government,
European Union,
Rights Convention,
Modern Rival,
Pinnochette Spanish,
Justice Luxemburg,
European Parliament,
American Constitution,
Pinnochette Chilean,
it's own,
chilean government,
international law,
european union,
american government,
enforce laws,
human rights,
consent government,
british police,
law nations,
|
Acceptance Essays
