FOR years, academics and left-wing activists have been searching for a means of enforcing international law, as they construe it, against the United States. So far, they have not been particularly successful. This was true even throughout Bill Clinton’s presidency, when there was a good deal of international-law rhetoric but precious little practical application. Mr. Clinton was, after all, the first U.S. president to reject the International Criminal Court; he also took the United States to war against Serbia without obtaining United Nations approval.
George W. Bush has made clear by word and deed that he will never seek an international “permission slip” to defend America’s interests. His successes in Afghanistan, Iraq, and especially the 2004 presidential election have left many “progressives” muttering in a quiet rage. In response, some have taken to arguing that the United States in general, and the president in particular, is bound by international law because it is already part and parcel of the Constitution-law that the president must “faithfully execute” as part of his office. Doubtless hoping to steal a march on their conservative opponents, a few hardy souls have actually turned to the Constitution’s framers for support.
Comments