Is the United States above the United Nations law and mandates?
478985
The United States must abide by laws that govern such things as international trade and human rights.  The United States, as is with every other nation, is not required to abide by the edicts passed by the United Nations.  \n\nIf they elect not to abide by a law that it feels is unfair or against the United States' interests they can refuse to uphold that law.  The consequences could include cooled relationships with other countries, embargos and even U N sanctioned war.
655810
We don't need to worry much about the current administration allowing the UN taking over.  \nWhat is very worrisome is some dishonest, unAmerican nutcase like Hellary appointing Bill king of the UN, subverting the US constitution and allowing the UN to take over.  \nTheir first step in destroying our constitution is to start with the 2nd amendment.\nMy 9 must have been stolen, I don't have any idea where it is.
974548
The UN is a toy for the rich countries that keep it in existence.  Without funding from the US, the UN would be even less viable than it is now.  Do you have an example of this toying or is it just your impression?
15738
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not binding law in any way. It is more an affirmation of the basic rights that the UN is supposed to strive to uphold. The Bill of Rights is binding law in the United States, since it is a part of the Constitution. The source below have more information on both.
94573
I guess you refer to the USA president and its government. This is a good question... but it should yet have been asked and resolved years ago!! Poor USA.
370145
The U.S. Constitution is the "Supreme law of the land." No treaty adopting the criminal law of an international body can overrule the protections contained in the first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights). \n\nThus, the only way that the U.S. could become a member of the International Criminal Court, such that the Court's decisions would have binding effect on U.S. citizens, would be if the U.S. Constitution were amended to include this provision.\n\nI cannot imagine the conditions which would be necessary for a super-majority (2/3rds) of the U.S. Congress and all of the 50 States to vote to enact such an amendment. \n\nTherefore, our membership in the International Criminal Court would be a meaningless jesture, because its rulings could not be imposed on anyone in the United States.
175950
It can issue resolutions chastising the nation in violation of the decree, impose economic sanctions, or encourage its members to take military action.  But for the most part UN decrees are more along the lines of recommendations that actual laws.
781979
If we adhere to the most basic of morals, that we must apply the same standards to ourselves, that we apply to others.\nThen there is no doubt that international law should also apply to us. \nUnfortunately the USA is alone in exempting itself from international law, the world court, and virtually every understanding that the rest of the world is expected to comply with.\nThe Geneva conventions were written in an attempt to criminalize the atrocities committed leading up to, and during WW2, this was not an easy task as allied forces had themselves done some immoral things.\nTorture was of course, an obvious war crime, and it has been so since Geneva.\nUnfortunately during this extremist Bush regime, the US has done the unthinkable, not only has it tortured, and contracted out torturing or anyone who it sees fit to accuse of being a terrorist, but it has tried to change the law to avoid prosecution, and to legitimize torture in the future.\nThe USA has unparalleled economical, political, and military power so it is difficult to hold them to account if they are unwilling to cooperate, I would be surprised if the charges filed in Germany will lead to anything, but the people filing seem to be confident that the court has no excuse this time to dismiss the case.\n\nThe world would be a better place if the USA had to conform to international law, the key players in the Bush regime should be tried for war crimes.
915725
Actually, there is not anyone or anybody, that has binding power over the U.S., but it is on a voluntary basis that the U.S. could bring the dispute to the United Nations, or to the International Court in Hague, and then the U. S. could agree to be bound under whatever was decided.\n\n For example, for action against Iraq, Bush wanted to just go ahead and act against Iraq; but some people in his administration asked that Bush go through the United Nations so, that it has some type of world policy platform. BUT, the U.S. is not under any obligation to obey the United Nations at all. It is a voluntary agreement.
814237
The United Nations actively pursues anti-American policies and appeases America's enemies, while being largely funded by $3 billion worth of annual American dues. After revealing the depth of rampant corruption in the UN, it is time to recognize the changes in Old Europe and redesign America's alliances that line up with America's national interests. \n\nIf John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have their way, Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac will gain veto power over American foreign policy. Scared? You should be. It could happen. And in Inside the Asylum, former deputy undersecretary of defense Jed Babbin shows just how it could happen and why the UN deserves the nickname "The Asylum." \n\nIn the Asylum... \n\n* the UN assists international terrorists. Babbin exposes the shocking links between the UN and terrorist organizations. \n\n* The money trail from the UN to Saddam Hussein. It is time to rip the veil from the outrageous Oil-for-Food program-proving that the UN sold its moral legitimacy for oil, stuffed its own pockets at the expense of the Iraqi people, and undermined American pressure on Saddam Hussein: the UN's cash cow. The UN's Oil-for-Food program, provided Saddam Hussein with the means to bribe politicians, to deprive his people of needed food and medicine, and to literally steal billions of dollars. There is even emerging evidence that money from the program might have gone to support al-Qaeda. \n\n• The UN's raid on the American Treasury: dominated by Third World staffers who consider the United States Treasury "the common heritage of mankind." Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, is an anti-American moral relativist who misses no opportunity to arrogate power from the United States to the UN. \n\n* The United Nations and the European Union are morally bankrupt-and open enemies of the United States. France and the United Nations have cost American lives in Iraq by their perverse delaying of American action in the Iraq War. American troops are fighting and dying today because of a terrorist strategy Saddam Hussein developed while France and the United Nations delayed Operation Iraqi Freedom. \n\nThe UN is more of an international criminal than a dispenser of legitimate international law. If America wants to retain its sovereignty and security, it's time to escape from the UN asylum and say goodbye to the false friends of Old Europe. We owe no tribute to the UN and the EU, We should not be ashamed and divided to look after our own defense." \n\nThe United Nations building in Manhattan is an international enclave, no longer American territory. Inside the Asylum is a powerful argument that it's time to reclaim that land for America.
791313
IT IS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
1186500
On all issues of law the final arbiter in the United States is the Supreme Court.  That body in the USA's tricameral system of government has frequently overruled the executive and/or legislative branches of government as to interpretations of existing law.  This in no way should lead one to make such statements as "the President is ignoring the constitution."  It merely demonstrates that a reading  of existing law has been more narrowly defined by the court as interpreted vis-a-vis the constitution and that the system of checks and balances work.
587238
Well it would depend on the Constitution of the particular country.  But as an example the United States and Great Britain both have bi-cameral legistative systems.
301618
run government under u.s.a
56453
Yes, UN is outdated and could not survive without the U.S.A. The big fix is that the security council needs to be re-constituted with the following most populous and influential nations in the 21st Century:\n\nUSA\nChina\nRussia\nIndia\nEuropean Union\nIndonesia\nBrazil
481851
If the USA is so superior, then why are the people in Louisiana still not back on their feet? Why hasn't Bush stepped in the help those people? Why does the rest of the world come before his own country? To answer your question, the USA in not superior.
203328
Absolutly neccessary for the US.  Other countries may differ.  In the USA, the Military is subordinate to the government, but does not swear allegence to it.  Our allegance is sworn to the US Constitution.  The first words of its Preamble are "We the People".  The military's first job is to defend "the People" against all threats foriegn and domestic.  Though on the domestic side, we usually differ to the police and FBI, who take similar oaths.\n\nThe military makes up one of the four aspects of national power with Diplomacy, Information (PR, Info Denial, Technology sharing, etc), and Economic (Most Favored Nation Status to embargos) making up the other three.  Therefor, it is essential the military remain under civilian control.\n\nThe US has a long history of civilian control of the Armed Forces and the military, as stated above, has many safeguards against abuse of power.  One of these is the right of the People, as individuals, to be armed.  The Founding Fathers cited this in both the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist writings as paramount.  Another control is the ability to deny execution of orders based on Constitutionality.  Clinton ran into this when he was hunting his political enemies down and tried to employ National Guard assets for surveilance purposes.  The National Guard refused based on the un-Constitutionality of the orders.  Local media in my state had a field day with this in 1994, though it was "oddly" ignored by the national media.  Clinton was then forced to illegally use the FBI and IRS to investigate and/or audit his opponents (scandels known as File-Gate among others).\n\nCongress controls the rules governing the military and the President is the Commander in Chief (see the US Constitution).  The UCMJ is based on the US Constitution, US Congressional regulations, and Federal law.\n\nThus the Military remains a close but subordinate part of the civilian government and the People of the USA.