What is the fundamental difference between the UN treaties and the treaties the Founding Fathers would have been familiar with?

The Constitution allows us to make international treaties between countries, but there is a difference from the treaties the founding fathers were familiar with and those of today. Today we have things such as the United Nations Convention, which comes up with universal laws and practices to be signed by countries who agree to adopt those laws into their own country. Things such as the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child, and the Eliminating All Forms of Discrimination Against Women treaties are made to be accepted by all countries as the proper way to do things. The Founding Fathers were familiar with treaties of peace and trade. Those that led to amicable relations and increased commerce.

What would happen if we ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child in the United States? This treaty outlines the rights of children and dictates how to properly care and raise them. If the United States agreed to ratify this and make it the new law of the land, we would essentially be undermining our own authority in the Constitution to govern ourselves. We would be allowing people from all over the world to tell us how to care for our children in America. I believe that the Founding Fathers would not take kindly to this kind of treaty, because it would be letting other countries dictate to us and rid us of the freedom that they worked so hard to achieve. America can take care of its children without help!



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s