Subject: txt owg lbrty -
Remember President Obama’s trip to Copenhagen last year? Not the failed Chicago Olympics bid, but the Climate Change Conference where he attempted to place America under a cooperative international climate treaty.
Now, the President has turned his attention to other avenues of global entente, and the frustrated momentum of the climate treaty has been replaced with a move towards closer cooperation with the International Criminal Court.
Committing the U.S. to international accords that threaten to undermine our nation’s sovereignty appears to be a temptation the current administration cannot resist. 
In November 2009, Stephen Rapp, the American Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes Issues announced that the “[U.S.] government has now made the decision that Americans will return to engagement at the ICC.” At first glance this may appear as a great opportunity for America to shed its big-bully persona and embrace an agreeable multi-lateral approach.
However, as Marion Smith of the Heritage Foundation argues in a recent Backgrounder, An Inconvenient Founding: America’s Principles Applied to the ICC, American involvement in the ICC would represent nothing short of ceding America’s sovereignty to an unaccountable international legal body.
ICC membership would represent an important break from our First Principles. Citing historical examples dating back to the Founding, Smith argues that the U.S. has always been wary of international agreements that may supersede the power of the Constitution and consequently threaten the sovereignty of the U.S.
The continued independence of the U.S. remains crucial to the maintenance of America’s democratic institutions. Despite mounting global pressure to the contrary, America must remain true to its constitutional obligations and continue to defend the sovereignty of our nation.
READ MORE
No comments:
Post a Comment