Human Rights and Self-Governmentrnby Marshall DeRosarnIn the United States, the federal system of government is undergoingrnprofound changes that compel students of Americanrnpolitics to rethink traditional ideas about national identity.rnQuestions such as: “What does it mean to be a citizen of thernUnited States?” and “What are the duties and privileges of U.S.rncitizenship?” and “In what manner and to what extent is the locusrnof sovereignty to be found within the jurisdiction of thesernUnited States?” For economic, political, and constitutional developmentsrnthat advanced national supremacy since thernPhiladelphia Convention in 1787 and the same influences thatrnare now relegating national sovereignty to the same dustbin ofrnhistory into which state sovereignty has been tossed, just as staternsovereignty was engulfed by nationalism, so national sovereigntyrnis being engulfed by a globalistic network of policymakingrnand implementation.rnA case in point is human rights, or more specifically, a universalrnhuman rights agenda that scoffs at traditional Americanrnprinciples such as popular control over public policy and thernconstitutional federalism that was designed to safeguard popularrncontrol. The adjudicative incarnation of this type of casernlaw has already taken embryonic form in the jurisprudence ofrnnational and state court opinions. If unchallenged, this incarnationrnin the next century will be walking upright with the vigorrnof youth, uncontainable by the cradle-like checks and balancesrnof America’s remnant constitutional federalism.rnThe universal human rights agenda is not limited to the sortsrnof rights protected in the United States and state constitutions.rnMarshall DeRosa is a professor of political science at FloridarnAtlantic University and author, most recently, of The NinthrnAmendment and the Politics of Creative Jurisprudence: Disparagingrnthe Fundamental Right to Popular Control (Transaction).rnRather they have within their scope policies that necessitate extensivernsocial engineering on a global scale, including redistributivernpolicies. Several U.N. documents provide Americanrnjurists with the requisite raw materials to incorporate internationallyrngenerated human rights into national and state casernlaw, as a review of the United Nations Charter, the United NationsrnDeclaration of Universal Human Rights, the InternationalrnCovenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and thernInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makesrnclear.rnThe preamble to the U.N. charter appears to be innocuousrn—”We the people of the United Nations determinedrn. . . “—but it can be used to consolidate sovereignty into an extendedrnglobal community of individuals, in contradistinctionrnto a collection of sovereign communities represented by theirrnrespective national governments. Chief Justice John Marshall,rnin the case that established national supremacy over the states,rndeduced from the “We the People” of the U.S. Constitutionrnthat the national “government proceeds directly from the people”rnand is “ordained and established in the name of the people”rn(see McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819). This vision of governmentrn”proceeding directly from the people” is requisite tornthe U.N. implementation of universal human rights. In conjunctionrnwith Article 55 of its charter, the U.N. has its own generalrnwelfare mandate, which states that it “shall promote (a)rnhigher standards of living, full emplovment, and conditions ofrneconomic and social progress and development; (b) solutionsrnof international economic, social, health, and related problems;rnand international cultural and economic cooperation; and (c)rnuniversal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamentalrnfreedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex,rnlanguage, or religion.” Thus, the groundwork for transnationallyrnbased rights has been established.rn20/CHRONICLESrnrnrn