An interesting thought, Enforcing Treaty Law: U.N. Committees and U.S. Cou

[rumpel]

If Ohio litigation fails, could this be cited as the next step?

A pre-election article by Noah Levitt, Esq.

snip

Treaty Law - Which Is United States Federal Law - Sets Election Standards

As noted above, if there is indeed litigation relating to the November 2 election, international law could play a role - as could international monitors. Several treaties are directly applicable.

First, there is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) - which was drafted in large part by the United States under the guidance of Eleanor Roosevelt, and adopted by the U.N. in 1948. Article 21(3) of the UDHR provides that "the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."

Second, there is the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), which the U.S. has signed and ratified. In its Article 5, the ICERD similarly provides that countries will undertake to provide the right to participate in elections--to vote and to stand for election-on the basis of "universal and equal suffrage," without distinction as to "race, colour, or national or ethnic origin."

Third, there is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the U.S. has signed and ratified. Article 25 of the ICCPR provides that every citizen shall have the right to vote and be elected at "genuine" periodic elections, which shall be by universal and equal suffrage, without "unreasonable restrictions."

What does this language mean, specifically? In a 1996 memorandum analyzing the ICCPR, the U.N. Committee on Human Rights offered further clarification. It found that "states must take effective measures to ensure that all persons entitled to vote are able to exercise that right." It added that any "abusive interference" with registration or voting, as well as coercion of voters, should be prohibited by penal laws, and those laws should be strictly enforced. Finally, it made clear that there should be "independent scrutiny of the voting and counting process so electors have confidence in the security of the ballot and the counting of the votes."

snip

Litigants may also consider suing directly under the relevant treaty. Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear any disputes regarding federal law. And treaties, under the Constitution, are federal law just as surely as statutes - and the Constitution itself - are. Although a bit more unusual, suits for injunctive relief to force compliance - or remedy non-compliance - with treaty provisions thus should not be ruled out.

Full article
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/leavitt/20041021.html

[Goldeneye]

1. I like the idea

but if international laws were so easy to regulate...wouldn't bush be out already for war crimes?

If we can use this...we might as well start looking into it now, because our law system seems to have fallen through.

[rumpel]

2. I think he is already being sued in International Criminal Court

which court he vehemently opposed.
Kerry would have joined, just like Clinton helped to create it...
damn

[Goldeneye]

3. I knew rummy was.

I guess i hadn't heard that bush was. Maybe they'll come and take him away forever.

[rumpel]

4. I think 4 Iraquis filed via Germany

[forgethell]

5. LMAO!!!!

International law does not hold in the United States. Didn't anybody tell you???

[rumpel]

6. As it says, Federal Courts have jurisdiction.

And under Article VI of our Constitution, treaties ratified by the Senate - like statutes - are part of the law of the land. That means that the United States must comply with them, or else violate not only the treaty itself, but also the Constitution that makes that treaty legally binding.

[forgethell]

7. And here I thought,

the Republicans controlled the courts. Live & learn.