One would think they would use the same liberal yardstick for all Amendments; but then again, there’s nothing consistent about liberals except their inconsistency.

Then, there is the matter of the UN-HRC acting contrary to its own charter by taking sides against Israel and shielding some of the worst abusers of human-rights on the planet. Not surprising when you realize the commission is composed of appointees from Libya, Cuba, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Tunisia, China, and Pakistan. There have been few HR commissioners from democratic countries since the early 1990s.

All of this is but the tip of the iceberg, however. Read http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/e06a5300f90fa0238025668700518ca4/6395d27097af5ed0c1256e1600569325/$FILE/G0316227.pdf for an idea just how far our ‘internationalists’ friends intend intruding on our sovereignty. The U.N. has set itself up as ultimate arbiter of what constitutes ‘human rights’ violations; and reads like a socialist wish-list. It does not limit its ‘mandate’ to wishing or recommending. It fully intends this as binding on every nation, regardless of charter status, legality, acceptance, consequence, or merit.

Just as an example of the implications should our government concede this, consider section 46 – Human Rights of Migrants. What is described therein is nothing less than full amnesty for illegals now and in perpetuity mandated by an extra-national commission. It makes it a crime, in this country, to even suggest closing our borders to invasion, mandates unchecked services to illegals (medical, education, housing, training, &c), makes it illegal to use immigration status as a criteria for employment, makes tolerance a duty, subjects the prosecuting of foreign nationals for crimes committed and apprehended here to the laws of their nation of origin, makes it our responsibility that illegals (while sneaking in) are given safe, unhindered passage, guarantees border guards will be prosecuted for doing their job, makes it illegal arresting illegals for the crime of being here illegally, makes it our responsibility to protect them from the consequences of their own illegal actions (e.g., rescue them from coyotes, debt-bondage, &c), limits the legislation we can pass to control our borders, uses children as a vehicle for shielding illegal alien adults, protects the flow of plunder out of the country, eradicates borders between adjacent countries, and it proclaims December 18 as ‘International Migrants Day’. It recommends burying all this within a framework of immigration control, the better to get ratification from individual states; and was passed without so much as a vote by the U.N. General Assembly.

- martin.musculus

Let's be clear in our understanding. Nothing in the Bill of Rights can be construed as having anything to do with ennumerating the rights of citizens. For example, the First Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law…" The subject is Congress, and the purpose of the amendment is to tell Congress what it cannot do.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are written to define the scope and limits of the delegated authority of government. "The people," in contradistinction to "the government," are only mentioned incidentally in order to define the restraint of government.

That is why it is inaccurate to use terminology like a "national right to freedom of religion." This right, and all other rights pre-date the Constitution, having been endowed by the Creator.

The Constitution does not create rights, it only charges government to secure them (make them safe). A state has sovereignty to govern itself (however eroded that status might be), but neither it nor the feds have the power to diminish or rescind rights.