SPACESUIT MADE OF FLESH

Podcast Show authored and read by MAYASONETTE LAMBKISS

on January 6th, 2024, Hawaii

on behalf of the Institute of Universal Human Rights - HAWAII

Episode 8: VALUES FORMING THE RIGHTS OF HUMAN LIFE

Values are deeply held beliefs guiding attitudes, behavior, decisions. We already discussed the nine highest rated American values of the US citizens in an earlier episode. Today we are going to look into the most significant legal documents forming this country that influence public opinion on values about the rights of a human being in society, and how we perceive the value of a human life.

It would be a mistake to compare the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Universal Human Rights without a deeper study of their author's mind and chosen leadership path for comparison first. Second, we will compare the two documents for form and structure as legal documents, qualitative content of their fundamental messages, and lastly, the influence they have on our historical and current political atmosphere.

Thomas Jefferson's objective creating the D.I. was to fight for and protect the freedom of a new birthing country against tyranny, which is the greed and selfish power of one individual, while Eleanor Roosevelt was on the path to protect the fundamental freedom of the individual human against the greed and selfish acts of society in large. Jefferson's vision was to form a country based on new world values of the individual, and each and every grievance against the king was a collective right of this new country to be protected even by the threat of a gruesome war, while Eleanor Roosevelt's vision was to form a coalition of countries to protect the rights of the suffering individual in gruesome war against crime.

Both documents are legal documents, therefore formalize and define legal rights, guaranteed by law, and reinforceable by law, they are written for such reason, and filed at court. To declare something, it means to make a statement of truth in writing, just as if someone made that same statement at court. It legally binds someone to make a true statement to authority, then to the government, and then make it public, and if it is found untrue, the writer legally perjured himself.

The writers and signers of the Declaration of Independence appointed themselves, they made the formation of the coalition of 13 states official and legally enforceable, all relevant parties have been officially informed of their actions, and the content has been made public to the people. If they had lost the war the same document would have become a false statement, and its writers be guilty in the King's court of perjury and other things. The same thing is true for the Declaration of Universal Human Rights, which is an international legal document, a coalition between originally 48 countries, but today of 193 countries, and their enemies are organized crime, international crime, war crimes, and any form of crimes against humanity. While the war for Independence lasted through a few years of chaos, it created order and invented a new form of society. But the war for the respect and freedom of the individual never seems to end, it is continuously current, and every offense only challenges our very humanity. Is it true, that the writers of the D.U.H.R. perjure themselves every time we lose the fight against a human trafficking brothel, whenever an illegal organ-hunter gets away from justice, or a sweatshop continues to operate for decades with forced labor in a hostile environment? Why? Why are they not guilty of perjury declaring the fundamental right of every human to life if they guarantee to millions their right to life, yet the fight is lost on millions of fronts per day? What is the nature of a universal citizenship and what needs to happen in the world to be fundamentally reinvented and governed as one universal coalition of states, the truly United Nations?

The preamble of the U.H.R. is the declaration of the purpose for the 30 articles are agreed upon by the United Nations, and it states the very goal it is attempting to achieve, answering the question what needs to happen in the world to be reinvent a world of justice:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world," (Universal Human Rights, Preamble)

What happens if we compare the Universal Human Rights document with the Constitution and its amendments? We have established in an earlier episode that the constitution means the law of the land. While the grievances not listed as articles of the declaration, they are spoken of in the preamble, then confirmed with the following resolution:

"Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms," (Universal Human Rights, Preamble), serving as an introduction to the 30 articles as the constitutional articles of the law of the land. These articles are written based on experience of the offenses inflicted on undeserving, innocent, defenseless human beings, millions of human beings as unconscionable acts of crimes. The war against crime is the most gruesome and endless war humanity has ever conducted. It is an immensely monitored, highly controlled process to prosecute such criminals in the court of justice, or international court, and the most necessary function for ending unjustified suffering in the world for further generations.

The D.U.H.R. is written by Eleanor Roosevelt, and significantly influenced by the American example, but by signing it every nation agreed to abide by it and incorporate it into their own country's constitution. How did the United States update its system of laws under the influence of D.U.H.R.? What differences had to be accommodated?

Significant changes that I can consider influenced by the Universal Human Rights Articles in the United States Constitution after 1948 could possibly be limited to the following points:

1. The instatement of the Miranda rights in 1966, which is an addition to the Fifth Amendment
2. Most evolution I can identify as the application of the amendments and articles, bill of rights, rather than definite changes to the original document. For example, in individual cases when the court ruled according to a higher standard than the constitution: regarding the ongoing debate about the moral and constitutional nature of capital punishment and prison conditions, and how much evolving common decency is constitutional exactly? Certain states outlawed capital punishment and set higher standards for the humane keeping of inmates, are they violating the constitution? Or is capital punishment unconstitutional? Also, in 1969 the Supreme Court incorporated the Double Jeopardy Clause against the states, and 2019 it declined changing the clause.
3. There is also the topic of contraceptive use within a marriage as a violation of marital rights, and its discussion in court as an infringement on marital privacy. And other heated topic for debate by prolife political activism against abortion, and assistance in an abortion, and it has been an ongoing debate for the second half of the twentieth century, could also be much influenced on both side of the argument by the Laws of Universal Human Rights. In 1992 the Pennsylvania court required spousal awareness before abortion in the case of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. The rights of the mother, father, and unborn child are emerging as equally important rights on the legal-ethical platform. In the Universal Human Rights Document Article 3 is more direct in the matter of right for life, except that it still leaves the right for life of a fetus entirely unmentioned, and as subject to continued debate: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person." But it does not say when that life begins. Neither defines what pursuit of happiness means either.

I have only been able to identify these 3 major qualitative changes in the application of the laws discussed, which could be the influence the Universal Human Rights on an evolving public opinion regarding the original law of the land articles. There could be more, but I am not a law student, and would need to conduct deeper research to come to a conclusive list.

Article #4 of the UHR corresponds to the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution, but the exact wording of 'Trafficking in Persons' is unmentioned in either, which is the growing concern for disregard for the value of human life. "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms." and in the US Constitution amendment 13: "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." and "Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." For TIP, Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and consecutive repeated statues. Trafficking in Persons' (TIP) is defined by law and involves the following illegal activities: Use of "Coercion, Commercial Sex Act, Child Soldiering, Fraud, Force, Human Smuggling, Labor Trafficking, Involuntary Servitude, Peonage/Debt Bondage, Severe Forms of Trafficking in Persons, Sex Trafficking". The most effective method of fighting against these gruesome crimes is prevention by education. Listen in for future podcast shows to learn more on this topic, because the ultimate purpose of these fundamental studies in historical legal documents is to prepare you for receiving material intending to educate how to recognize dangerous situation, and how to act in dangerous situation on your own and other vulnerable individual's behalf safely.

I personally consider every one of the 30 articles human rights extremely crucial for world peace, but these articles nowhere mention crimes against humanity, massive, organized crimes, war crimes, etc. which problems are significantly threatening civilization on earth. Seems that is a material we will need to discuss in a future episode.

Thank you for listening and I hope your chosen PONO path remains PONO. In ancient Hawaiian it means that may your chosen righteous path remain righteous.

Aloha

You have been listening to the SpaceSuit Made of Flesh podcast by Mayasonette Lambkiss from Hawaii.

REFERENCES:

Declaration of Universal Human Rights - United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris, France, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt as Resolution 217 during its third session.

U. S. Declaration of Independence (1776)

U. S. Constitution 13th Amendment

TIP, Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000