Wright, the Court went the next logical step and freed the Presidentrnfrom dependency on the Senate. In U.S. v. Belmontrn(1937), the Court elevated executive agreements to the samernconstitutional Article VI status as treaties.rnThere are three avenues of influence over which U.N.-basedrnrights may be incorporated into American constitutionalrnlaw. First, the provisions may be deemed to be self-executing.rnA self-executing treaty is one in which the terms of the treatyrnare binding upon national and state courts without requiringrnancillary congressional legislative action. Second, if the provisionsrnare not self-executing, the U.S. Congress may statutorilyrnimplement legislation that provides for their implementation.rnWhether self-executing or statutorily implemented, both typesrnof implementation fall under the supremacy clause of ArticlernVI of the U.S. Constitution. And third, the stipulated rightsrnmay incrementally become part of the American juridicalrnmindset, thereby finding their way into the American legal culture.rnBut regardless of the means of incorporation, the end resultrnis the same: the incorporation of these United Nationssanctionedrnuniversal human rights would have a profoundrnimpact on the legal culture of the United States, whereby, inrnthe words of one advocate, international law would be convertedrninto worid law.rnOne should not be deceived into believing that internationallyrngenerated human rights will augment the “unalienablernRights . . . of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” byrnlimiting state and national policies. This transnational jurisprudencernwill be the antithesis of such Jeffersonian idealsrnand will determine who gets what, when, and how in thernemerging New World Order. From the language and rhetoricalrncontext of these documents, it is quite clear that what passes forrna universal human right will inevitably be measured by thernstandards of global equality and redistribution, which is tantamountrnto conceding the fruits of the Cold War stalemate tornegalitarian ideologues. Secretary-General of the U.N., BoutrosrnBoutros-Ghali, acknowledged that the universal human rightsrnagenda is a “fundamental dialectical conflict between thernuniversal [the global human family] and the particular [therntraditional nation-state].” From the perspective of the UnitedrnNations, “human rights, by definition, are the ultimate norm ofrnpolitics [and] in their very expression, reflect a power relationship.”rnThe universal human rights movement is part of a “historicalrnsynthesis” through which a “single human community”rnwill democratically procure the rights to a healthy environment,rnpeace, food, security, ownership of the common heritagernof mankind, and development. “The human person is the centralrnsubject of development,” and this “imposes on States . . .rnat the national level, the duty to ensure access to basic resources,rneducation, health services, food, housing, employmentrnand the fair distribution of income.”rnAlthough American commitments to universal humanrnrights treaties appear to be harmless, these commitments poserna significant threat to the American sovereignty and the constitutionalrnrule of law, premised upon popular control. The displacementrnof popular control with transnational elitism will bernsubtle, but effective. More specifically, it is clear that the NewrnWorld Order is at odds with the American constitutionalrnscheme of republican government, which entails the fundamentalrnright to be self-governing for ourselves and our posterity.rnThe universal human rights agenda is nothing short of sacrificingrnfreedom for the Utopian speculations about whichrnJames Madison warned.rnReviving the Bricker Amendments of the I950’s will not suffice.rnNeither Congress, the Chief Executive, nor the states arernreliable checks against the global leviathan. As the examples ofrn1776 and 1861 make clear, if liberty is to be preserved, thernleviathan must be destroyed and the locus of sovereigntyrnrestored to its constitutional moorings. In the words ofrnM.E. Bradford, we have reached the point of a reactionaryrnimperative.rnEpitaph for an Unfashionable Poetrnby Katherine McAlpinernFuture biographers take note: his lifernwon’t make any best-seller lists. One wifernwas all he had and never, to our knowledge,rnliked to sneak out with leather boys or collegerngirls. He kept his private life quite private,rnwas generous with friends, did not arrive atrnpoetry readings plastered and unkempt.rnHe never made a suicide attemptrnor suffered bouts of existential pain.rnHis rhymes were funny, sly, and fiercely sane—rnwhich brought small recognition, no awards,rnlush grants or honorary mortarboards.rnYet he continued, cheerful, undeterred,rnto skewer sacred cows and scare the herd.rnSo let’s hear no regrets on his behalf;rnin heaven, he’s still having the last laugh.rnAUGUST 1996/23rnrnrn