Editing 76-12-B1 (section)

=== Transcript ===
With talk of human rights, the latest subject along the Washington cocktail
circuit; an old threat to our own independence, has risen to haunt us. The
President, in his address to the United Nations, promised to "work closely with
our Congress" to achieve ratification of the Genocide Convention.

Reduced to the simplicity of that title it would seem that no one could be
opposed to our participation in such a pact. Genocide -- the wiping out of a
people -- for whatever reason is, of course, abhorrent to any civilized being.
Our 200 year history makes it plain that the United States has never shown even
the slightest indication that such a thing would be thinkable.

Unfortunately, the Genocide Convention is not as simple as its title indicates.
I'll speak to that in a moment, but first a little history. When the United States
agreed to abide by the World Court in the late '40's, our government established -- through
the Connally Reservation -- that the United States reserved the right to
decide for itself what cases affecting us would be taken to the World Court. Off
and on in these 30 years, efforts have been made to scrap the Connally Amendment.
They have been resisted, because without it the World Court would involve itself
in our purely internal affairs.

Now comes the latest effort. The Genocide Convention which in its Article Nine
states, -- QUOTE -- "Disputes between the contracting parties relating to the
interpretation, application, or fulfillment of the present Convention (including
those related to the responsibility of a state for genocide or any of the other
acts enumerated in article three) shall be submitted to the International Court
of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute." -- UNQUOTE.

Now, let your imagination go for a minute. Picture some of our mischief-makers,
charging any kind of discrimination or unfairness, taking their case to an international
court which includes jurists from the Soviet Union and other communist
and pro-communist nations. Remember, once ratified by us, this treaty subjects
the United States to the unreserved jurisdiction of that International Court. It
supersedes all state laws and nullifies all Acts of Congress inconsistent with the
terms of the Convention.

One of the great watchdogs over the years, who stood between us and ratification
of this treaty, was former U. S. Senator Sam Ervin (Democrat of North Carolina.)
He is recognized as a great authority on our Constitution. He is now retired,
but during the many battles over this issue, he said things we should be remembering
now that we are being threatened again.

He said the World Court, -- QUOTE -- "could require the United States to go to war
to prevent one nation from killing the nationals of another nation." -- UNQUOTE.
American soldiers could be tried by this international tribunal for killing, or
wounding, the military forces of a warring enemy and the Convention could authorize
calling the United Nations to take action against the United States.

Former Senator Ervin says our own public officials and individual American citizens
could be prosecuted and punished for causing mental harm (and who defines that?)
to members of a national, ethnic, social, or cultural group. In short, it appears
that the President in his speech on human rights promised to help Congress eliminate
the guaranty of our human rights embodied in our own Constitution. Surely, that can't
be what he intends.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">