Periodically, the United States Government will publish a compendium of its “Treaties in Force”.
These are international treaties to which the President of the United States, with the consent of the Senate, has agreed to subject the whole of the United States to.
These treaties supersede both Federal Law and State Law.
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/TIF-2020-Full-website-view.pdf
Some significant ones listed:
-
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MIGRATION - TAXATION - Tax reimbursement agreement, with annex. Signed at Washington September 17, 1997. Entered into force September 17, 1997. TIAS 12883
-
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE UNIFICATION OF PRIVATE LAW - TAXATION - Tax reimbursement agreement, with annex. Signed at Rome September 17, 2013. Entered into force September 17, 2013. TIAS 13-917
-
Geneva Convention on road traffic, with annexes and protocol. - Done at Geneva September 19, 1949. Entered into force March 26, 1952. 3 UST 3008; TIAS 2487; 125 UNTS 22 Depositary: United Nations
Please let me know significant ones to add to the list.
Which of these should we want revoked and why?
How would one go about working to revoke these, and what would the consequences be?
Was the ability to enter into treaties delegated from the President to the Secretary of State?
Thanks to u/bubble_bursts and u/AlgaeBanquet for reminding me about intending to make this thread.
More posted as I dig through the document myself.
In the words of the great rush limbaugh I refuse to participate!!!!!
Easier said than done when talking about an international treaty. Even the states get to participate.
It’s why I’m suggesting that we figure out how to recommend the treaty be reviewed for revocation.
another reason why your post is important just came to mind, most other countries of the world have adopted the “Convention on the Rights of the Child” and in human rights circles most the world wonders why is it that the United States is the only major country that hasn’t adopted it? don’t we care about children?”!!!
It turns out that Cynthia Cohen Price helped draft the convention on the right of the child, and it is her contention that the treaty was intended to include the abolishment of corporal punishment for children, i.e. spanking.
So the US Senate ratified the convention on the rights of the child, even though it doesn’t spell out that spanking would be banned and states without the implement this, it clearly was Cynthia Cohen’s intention that wording in this treaty meant to her that spanking would be banned, and that states would have to carry out this band.
Such implementation with strongly increase the social services forces in many states and lead to the taking of children from many families.
Could have added a reservation understanding and memorandum (RUDs) to the treaty at the Senate were to ratify the treaty and indicate that the USA objects to any language in the treaty that would be lent towards the meaning or intent of banning spanking when it comes to family discipline of children?
Yes, the Senate could have added a RUD to the treaty and ratified the treaty, but why give left us woke judges the opportunity to go all at it anyways, knowing how they find ways around everything. Then there’s the woke judges who would rule that children according to their ages have rights to violent and lascivious tv, movies and “music” - taking guidance away from parents.
yes the USA cares about children, that’s why there is GAW, Q, MAGA, MAHA when President Trump, with Joe Lange “ the plan to save the world.”
If they gad any real power in treaties against the people we would have all our gun rights superceded by treaty 100 years ago. Even they know better.
that’s a good point! they would have banned so many rifles and other things in treaties if they actually could get around the Bill f Rights