>>> "William S. Lear" <rael at zopyra.com> 03/13/00 10:45AM >>>
Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm a bit pressed for time, and my knowledge of this area is rather weak), but don't treaties entered into become a part of the "supreme law of the land" (Article VI, Section 2)? Is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights an agreement with the same binding power as a treaty?
In any case, it might be nice to point out that the US largely rejects the socio-economic provisions of this document, and it would be a good place to start when you think of urging "employment" as a domestic right. What we really should be doing, is creating more awareness of this very sorely neglected document, and this might be a good opportunity.
**********
CB: Attorney Ann Fagan Ginger of the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute in Berkeley Calif. founded and for years has practiced an approach to progressive law of the type that William Lear suggests here ( and even more broadly than in employment rights law) that is to use international law especially the United Nations Charter, conventions/treaties and convenants in U.S. domestic courts.
In the Summer 1994 National Lawyers Guild Practitioner Special Issue on New U.S. Human Rights Laws , Ginger and Anne Wagley wrote " Powerful Laws for Civil Rights Activists" on what aspects of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights" the U.S. has adopted and which not.
"Out of the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights came two more specific documents: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural (ICESCR), which together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights form the International Bill of Rights..."
The ICCPR was ratified signed by President Carter as a treaty in1977 and ratified by the Senate in 1992. As of 1994, the Senate had not ratified the ICESCR. It is not clear to me whether the procedure involves a separate adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but I think not.
CB