A Higher, Supreme Law on Our Voting Human Rights...and Wrongs This week, starting with last Sunday, is the anniversary week of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted Dec. 10,1948. Enlightened wisdom of inalienable human rights, inspired by our own Declaration of Independence and codified into rule of law to distill the preventive wisdom learned from the horror of World War II, was given to the world by Eleanor Roosevelt on that day at the UN in her role as world leader in the administration off Harry Truman. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html especially Article 21 Section 3 on voting rights. Human rights law is universal. That's quite a bit more Supreme than what the Supreme Court did this week. Human rights law is based in 'the law of do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. It is inalienable and timeless. Human rights law lives in all of us. A US "Supreme Court", or any human court, or Congress, or any politicians, that forget this, are not only not Supreme nor Supremely advised, but self-destructive and asking for public shame and karmic trouble. The lawyers, judges and candidates this week left out any mention or memory of codified human rights voting law and history. Why? As you can read below, the Electoral College was always essentially illegal under human rights law, because it treats citizens of the same nation differently - some voters are more equal than others, because their votes are weighted, and turned into a winner take all formula by state. In fact, the Electoral College is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution itself, which states that all citizens must receive due (equal) process of law. Previous generations did not notice the inconsistency because 1) they could barely read, 2) the Electoral College was usually a rubber stamp, and very seldom contradicted a national vote, so people forgot it was even there. It was a Constitutionally inconsistent snake in the grass that no one noticed. Our generation has more recent law and timeless codified law to guide us. Like slavery itself and the denial of votes to people without property and women, the Electoral College may have SEEMED "legal" to those living in 1789, but ask slaves and women silenced for centuries if it was ever just or acceptable human rights law, and surely they would say no. In 1948, American government had progressed enough to lead the world, and codify these principles into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to help prevent the dictatorship of one group of human beings over others. This week, the government of the US stepped back in time on human rights, and ignored the principles we thought all American had come to understand in the aftermath of World War II. Apparently, our politicians think they are above human rights law. A Higher Court, who is always watching, may not agree with this weeks' "ruling" and its quick acceptance by politicians of both parties. Here are relevant excerpts From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Preamble... Whereas it is essential, ... *** that human rights be protected by the rule of law....*** Article 21 (3) 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... - Article 30 Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United States as a member of the General Assembly of the United Nations, December 10, 1948. The Electoral College is Illegal Under Human Rights Law, and Inconsistent with the rest of the Constitution. Inalienable, Universal vs Constitutionally Inconsistent Timeless Right vs 1789 flaw Which rule of law sounds Higher to you? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/
