tagc of terror… filled his head: the walking dead of Ausehwitz,rnBelsen,” ete., ete. Never mind that this right-wing rally thatrnBond witnessed had yet to seize power, had shown no sign ofrnorganizing a eoup, had built no camps and exterminated nornone—never mind, in other words, that this gathering had thusrnfar eommitted no crime. For Ciardner’s and the new Bond’srnmessage is clear: scratch the patriotic veneer of national security,rngo beneath the surface rhetoric of sovereignty and historicrnculture, and a scientific racist will emerge.rnWhy should we worry about a penny dreadful? The obviousrnanswer is that most people are more likely to read John Gardnerrnthan Jefferson, more ready to listen to Madonna than Mozart,rnand more moved by the message on a Greenpeace T-shirt thanrna principled argument on the dangers of international treatiesrnthat would supersede American law for the ostensible purposernof protecting the cute and cuddly. In other words, it is thernseemingly innocuous, apparently harmless, often in the guise ofrnhumanitarianism, that is frequently the most dangerous to ourrnliberties.rnIf ever conscientious objectorsrnwere needed in this country,rnit would be each and every timernthe Stars and Stripes flies inrnthe shadow of the blue flag ofrntransnationalism.rnWhile in Spain last year, I struck up a conversation with a ladyrnvisiting from Sussex. She was outraged by Maastricht andrnEuropean unity. Her husband works in a port that deals in exportsrnof British livestock, a trade which animal rights activistsrnhave confounded with numerous (and sometimes violent)rndemonstrations in recent years, and to what do these activistsrnturn in their attempt to override British law and block her husband’srntrade? European law and the Worid Gourt. The womanrnhad also, like my wife and I, just returned from bullfights onrnthe Gosta del Sol, and we all agreed: Spaniards may believerntheir national pastime is safe in the short run from the Gontinent’srnorganized animal rights movement, but considering thernhomogenizing force of European consolidation and the NewrnPuritanism sweeping through the West, bullfighting will facernthe sword in the next eentur-.rnNor did this woman have much faith in John Major’s hardwonrn”opt-out” option on certain EG policies, such as open immigrationrnas part of the Single Eiuropean Act. Britain can erectrnall kinds of barriers to Third Wodd fakirs, she argued, but whatrnis to prevent an Ethiopian or Algerian from entering an EGrncountry with a less stringent entrance policy for non-EG residentsrnand then relocating to Piccadilly for Albion’s more generousrnsocial services? Nothing, she answered. “You can forgetrn’this blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,'” shernfumed. “The Camp of the Saints is our future.”rnWhen my wife and I visited museums in Madrid we oncernagain encountered issues of national rights and internationalrnlaw: mass confusion reigned over who should and should not berncharged admission to the state museums. Spain had longrnwaived admission fees for all Spanish citizens, all legal foreignrnresidents in Spain, and everyone under the age of 21. All otherrnvisitors were charged a fee, that is, until the European Gourt ofrnJustice ruled that this ethnocentric law that discriminatesrnagainst aliens runs counter to the spirit of Maastricht and violatesrnArticle 59 that mandates equal access to facilities for allrnEG members. Maastricht supporters hailed the decision as arnvictory for equal rights and for European harmony. But if freernmen and women lose even the right to control entrance to theirrnown museums of their own culture and accomplishments, tornpreserve and enjoy their historic national pastimes, what possiblernsay can they hope to maintain on the more important questionsrnof life and living, of war and peace, of family and faith?rnAn unsung American hero who realized the dangers to nationalrnsovereignty often posed by the seemingly harmlessrnand benevolent was Frank E. Holman, president of the AmericanrnBar Association in 1948 and 1949. Holman was born inrnSandy Gity, Utah, in 1886, graduated from the University ofrnUtah, won a Rhodes Scholarship, and, in contrast to thosernOxonians who forsake the scholastic for the inhalational arts,rnactually earned a law degree at Oxford. He worked in privaternpractice in the 1930’s, opposed F”ranklin Roosevelt—whom herncalled early on “a great fake, perhaps one of the greatest inrnAmerican polities”—and fought against the New Deal and entrancerninto World War II. After the war, as president of thernABA, and in light of the formation of the United Nations, hernfought tirelessly against the dangers posed by “socialist encroachmentsrnat home and international encroachments fromrnabroad.” He called for an alliance of the Southern and Westernrnstates against the Northeastern internationalists and their alliesrnin the larger Midwestern states, for only this alliance, he believed,rncould “save us from becoming” a “completely SocializedrnState at home and a puppet state in a world-wide hegemony.”rnThe seemingly innocuous ruling that Holman saw as criticalrnto the future of our national sovereignty was the SupremernGourt ruling of 1920, Missouri v. Holland. In 1914, a U.S. DistrictrnGourt had found unconstitutional a federal law protectingrnmigratory birds, ruling that it was an invasion of the powers reservedrnto the states by the Tenth Amendment, for the statesrnhad always regulated such matters in the past. The federal government,rnhowever, then signed a treatv with Great Britain tornprotect the birds and enacted statutes to carry out terms of therntreaty, which in 1920, in Missouri v. Holland, the SupremernGourt upheld because of Gongress’s authority to pass all “necessaryrnand proper” laws in order to enact the provisions of arnsigned international agreement.rnIt did not take social activists long to understand that therntrue meaning of this ruling had little to do with the sovereigntyrnof nature and everything to do with the nature of nationalrnsovereignty. For unhappy with a law in your particular state,rnand without the votes and support needed at the state level tornoverturn it? No problem, simply lobby the federal governmentrnto enter into a foreign treaty or executive agreement with an internationalrnentity that outlaws the activity you disapprove of,rnand then the Supreme Gourt will uphold any and all lawsrn22/CHRONICLESrnrnrn