>>1785859
What’s missing is “We, The People”.
It’s a bit hard to spot, but there is a subtle yet significant difference between various versions of “human rights” and especially the authority under which these have been established. This is the part of the speech where this comes forth (from Washington Post):
-:-
“Yes, we believe in democracy, with elections that are free and fair, and independent judiciaries and opposition parties, civil society and uncensored information so that individuals can make their own choices. Yes, we believe in open economies based on free markets and innovation and individual initiative and entrepreneurship and trade and investment that creates a broader prosperity.
And yes, we believe in human dignity, that every person is created equal -- no matter who you are or what you look like or who you love or where you come from. That is what we believe. That’s what makes us strong. And our enduring strength is also reflected in our respect for an international system that protects the rights of both nations and people -- a United Nations and a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international law and the means to enforce those laws.
But we also know that those rules are not self-executing.
They depend on people and nations of good will continually affirming them.
And that’s why Russia’s violation of international law, its assault on Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, must be met with condemnation, not because we’re trying to keep Russia down, but because the principles that have meant so much to Europe and the world must be lifted up.”
-:-
The key part is this: “a United Nations and a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international law and the means to enforce those laws”, which signals an entirely different approach than what is codified in the US constitution.
When you look at the UN declaration of human rights, you find that We, The People are being considered as SUBJECTS of the state. So, the state is considered to be above We, The People instead of the other way around.
Universal declaration of human rights:
Article 2 specifically refers to “a country or territory to which a persong BELONGS” and it specifies the essence of the state a person BELONGS to: LIMITATION of SOVEREIGNTY.
Article 8 taks about rights GRANTED by the constitution or law…. -you only have these rights because the government gives them to you..
Compare this to the US Declaration of independence:
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.“
It is the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to alter or to abolish it…..
So, what’s the problem then with “Russia’s violation of international law, its assault on Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity" and why must this be "met with condemnation”??
In the end, this comes down to who’s the ultimate sovereign in a state or country:
a) the State itself (UN model);
b) The People (US consititution model).
So, yes, what’s missing is “We, The People”, because if the State considers itself to be above the people, you are talking about exactly what Obama said:
“Those ideals have often been threatened by an older, more traditional view of power. This alternative vision argues that ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs, that order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign.”
Once again, who is the sovereign?
The UN, or We, The People?
For more, see: http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/WhatsMissingInObamasSpeech