California Bill Pushes U.N. Treaty
By Cheryl K. Chumley (09/03/04)
Surely this is not what the Framers of our Constitution had in mind during creation of the 10th Amendment, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
California, in serious breach of political boundary and protocol, and as shining example of yet another liberal legislative absurdity, has brought forth a bill that manages not only to circumvent U.S. congressional and executive authorities, but also, simultaneously, spit at the entire notion of American sovereignty.
On its way to the governor now is Assembly Bill 358, a measure introduced in Feb. 2003 by Democrat Assembly Member Hannah-Beth Jackson as a means of upholding the principles of the United Nations’ very own Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The shock here is this: CEDAW, a so-called “Bill of Rights” for women worldwide, has never achieved U.S. ratification.
Lawful bill? Yes -- California certainly has the right to enact measures distinct and separate from the federal government and even, in strict constructionist fashion, dismiss, disdain or at least battle those U.S. congressional impositions onto the states that fall into the 10th Amendment category of “not delegated to the United States.” But at issue here, too, is the intended spirit of the 10th Amendment, and it would be a hard sell to prove the Founding Fathers saw fit to provide a means for the separate governments to shrug off heavy federal interference yet left open the idea of substituting international influence in the form of a treaty as a guide for creating and shaping state legislation.
This is just what California’s A.B. 358 seeks to do – to ignore the Constitution’s Article Two, Section Two clause granting only the president and Senate authority over treaties by implementation of principles in a global contract that has yet to be approved by the federal branches of government. What’s even worse is the bill alludes to its own unnecessary existence.
“Existing law prohibits discrimination and harassment based on sex and gender in housing and employment. Existing federal law provides that no person on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance,” the legislative counsel’s digest portion of A.B. 358 reads.
So even while recognizing state and federal governments already outlaw discrimination against women, this bill nonetheless blazes forth its support of the CEDAW, insisting California’s three departments of corrections, education and health services, as well as the Commission on the Status of Women, use this U.N. treaty as a “framework … to examine the existing rights of women and girls” and subsequently report all findings to the legislature to use as a means of deciding future policy changes and appropriations. The overriding question, of course, is why aren’t these departments able to use state and federal laws as the framework for determining discriminatory practices, but must instead resort to un-ratified, unapproved U.N. law?
Good reason can be found in the United States’ refusal to ratify this CEDAW treaty. It not only opens the door to federal funding for abortions in Article 16 (e), by granting women the “rights to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights,” it also includes a curious left-field provision supporting global nuclear disarmament, purported as a necessary inclusion to aid the “relaxation of international tension” which leads to, apparently, “the attainment of full equality between men and women.”
Additionally, Article 11, Section Two calls forth treaty participants to “ensure (women’s) effective right to work” by providing “maternity leave with pay” and “the necessary supporting social services to enable parents to combine family obligations with work responsibilities,” to include establishment of “a network of childcare facilities.” A great financial burden for our nation’s taxpayers to assume, no doubt – but an even larger liability is outlined in Article 12.
Participating nations should provide pregnant women and new mothers with “free services where necessary,” Section Two reads.
But put this all aside for the moment – forget the treaty, overlook its status and ponder instead this more important issue. Aren’t these California Democrats’ actions akin to those of some on our U.S. Supreme Court who stated intent to use international law as basis of deciding American cases?
The lines between the U.S. Constitution and U.N. influence grow blurrier by the week; yesterday the Supreme Court, today California, tomorrow, to a community near you.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Cheryl K. Chumley
