Obama Transnationals, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution,and the worst of everything

Transnational lawyers and citizens of the worldl,would-be or real, believe that American law should be subservient to laws generated elsewhere. Some Supreme Court Justices have cited case law from outside the U.S. to justify their opinions. This has been considered idiosyncratic by many in the U.S. who have heretofore believed that the Constitution lays out the law by which Americans live and that this preserves our values.

The Constitution, however, has a "Supremacy Clause" which stipulates that treaties properly entered into and ratified are the supreme law of the land, trumping state law. Originally this was believed by the Founding Fathers to keep international matters out of the hands of the states. The rise of such transational organizations as the United Nations, however, has extended the reach of international law into areas traditionally thought to be properly the province of the states and local American practice. Thus, if the President and the U.S. Senate decide, in their wisdom and philosophical orientation, to approve a treaty that addresses even domestic matters, that treaty becomes part of the highest law of the U.S. and overrides state law. A treaty that has been festering for years, but now seems ripe for resurrection by the Obama administration ( perhaps properly termed "non-American" rather than "un-American ) and Democratic Senate, would substitute a U.N. specification about the "rights of children" for state laws and would trump normal American practice in the raising of parents' own progeny.

What happens when an approved and ratified treaty conflicts with the Constitution itself is also problematical with respect to Federal law. Certainly, if it goes to the Supreme Court and there are Justices who believe in the applicability of foreign law to override American practice, the Constitution may lose its primacy in protecting our rights. Heretofore, common sense on the part of the U.S. Senate and restraint on the part of the President have prevented this circumstance from becoming an issue; with the election of 2008 this is no longer true.
***It also happens that transnationals like Harold Koh want to visit the worst part of the American legal system on the rest of the world.****
Harold Koh, Serial Violator of International Law [Ed Whelan] 4-20-09
That’s the gist of this interesting post by Eric Posner (on the Volokh Conspiracy) concerning Harold Koh’s “champion[ing] of the modern (post-1979) use of the ATS [Alien Tort Statute] to impose tort liability on international lawbreakers”...Posner explains:Many (most? all?) foreign international lawyers believe that ATS litigation violates international law. They believe that the American tort system is a lunatic asylum...Foreign governments believe that ATS litigation infringes on their sovereignty...Koh has long supported a type of litigation that probably breaches international law and in any event universally offends foreign opinion...These facts provide further support for the notion (set forth by Justice Scalia in his dissent in Roper v. Simmons) that Koh and other American transnationalists use international law selectively as an ideological weapon: they invoke it when it advances their own hard-left ideological agenda and ignore it when it doesn’t.