The UN and Sovereignty

T

Timshel

New member
I am sure water thinks this is great.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080208/ap_on_re_eu/un_marijuana_machines

VIENNA, Austria - Marijuana vending machines in Los Angeles violate international treaties and should be shut down, the U.N.-affiliated drug control board said Friday.

"The International Narcotics Control Board is deeply concerned about reports that computerized vending machines to dispense cannabis (marijuana) have been put into operation in Los Angeles," Philip O. Emafo, president of the board, said in a statement.
 
If it is a Treaty then, per the Constitution, it is the "Law of the Land". Get the machines out of there. Or ratify a new treaty.
 
RStringfield said:
Fuck that! Why should agreements between states take precedent over the rights of the individual?
Click to expand...
Because it is in the constitution. You know that neat document that was ratified long ago... You can't pick and choose what you follow in it. You can't decide that only lefties don't like some parts of it, nor ignore those portions that you don't like.
 
Damocles said:
Because it is in the constitution. You know that neat document that was ratified long ago... You can't pick and choose what you follow in it. You can't decide that only lefties don't like some parts of it, nor ignore those portions that you don't like.
Click to expand...

BS Damo, the treaties were supposed to be agreements between the governments exclusively, not a means by which to circumvent the rights of the individual and pass laws upon them.

Madison on treaty power...
I do not conceive that power is given to the President and the Senate to dismember the empire, or alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority have this power. The exercise of the power must be consistent with the object of the delegation.

Jefferson...
By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those objects which are usually regulated by treaty, and cannot be otherwise regulated.... It must have meant to except out of those the rights reserved to the states; for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.

Even Hamilton...
The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is, that it shall not change the Constitution.... On natural principles, a treaty, which should manifestly betray or sacrifice primary interests of the state, would be null.

Congress has no power to sign away our rights or the powers of the individual states to "to Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws" (DofI).
 
RStringfield said:
BS Damo, the treaties were supposed to be agreements between the governments exclusively, not a means by which to circumvent the rights of the individual and pass laws upon them.

Madison on treaty power...
I do not conceive that power is given to the President and the Senate to dismember the empire, or alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority have this power. The exercise of the power must be consistent with the object of the delegation.

Jefferson...
By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those objects which are usually regulated by treaty, and cannot be otherwise regulated.... It must have meant to except out of those the rights reserved to the states; for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.

Even Hamilton...
The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is, that it shall not change the Constitution.... On natural principles, a treaty, which should manifestly betray or sacrifice primary interests of the state, would be null.

Congress has no power to sign away our rights or the powers of the individual states to "to Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws" (DofI).
Click to expand...
You can call it "BS" all you want, but the document states that if a Treaty is ratified by 2/3 of the Senate it is the "Law of the Land".

You can dislike it. But if you want it changed then support the ratification of a different treaty. Otherwise follow the document.

Saying it "must have meant", is not following what the document states. Either you want people to follow the document, or you want interpreters that just "feel" what it was supposed to mean. Is it a living document subject to change by "feel", or is it something that means what it says?
 
Damo, that is bullshit. Nowhere in the constitution is there a grant of power to regulate drugs and treaty powers are no grant of such a power. Treaties were not intended to take precedence over the constitution. The founders make this clear. The foreign policy powers were given to the feds so that 13 (now 50) different ambassabors and sets of agreements would not be needed.

Since the power of treaties is granted in the constitution, there is no way the treaty power itself can invalidate its source without nullifying the treaty power.

Former Chief Justice of the United States Joseph Story...

[T]hough the power is thus general and unrestricted, it is not to be so construed as to destroy the fundamental laws of the state. A power given by the Constitution cannot be construed to authorize a destruction of other powers given in the same instrument.... A treaty to change the organization of the Government, or to annihilate its sovereignty, to overturn its republican form, or to deprive it of its constitutional powers, would be void; because it would destroy what it was designed merely to fulfill, the will of the people.
 
RStringfield said:
Damo, that is bullshit. Nowhere in the constitution is there a grant of power to regulate drugs and treaty powers are no grant of such a power. Treaties were not intended to take precedence over the constitution. The founders make this clear. The foreign policy powers were given to the feds so that 13 (now 50) different ambassabors and sets of agreements would not be needed.

Since the power of treaties is granted in the constitution, there is no way the treaty power itself can invalidate its source without nullifying the treaty power.

Former Chief Justice of the United States Joseph Story...

[T]hough the power is thus general and unrestricted, it is not to be so construed as to destroy the fundamental laws of the state. A power given by the Constitution cannot be construed to authorize a destruction of other powers given in the same instrument.... A treaty to change the organization of the Government, or to annihilate its sovereignty, to overturn its republican form, or to deprive it of its constitutional powers, would be void; because it would destroy what it was designed merely to fulfill, the will of the people.
Click to expand...
No, the founders state that it "must" have meant. I read what the founders said. What they make clear is that they wish they had written that portion a bit better. Now, as for drugs. The SCOTUS has ruled that they are an interstate commerce issue. Therefore the Federal government has the right to regulate it. A treaty concerning the sale of it would be within their power to ratify.

You are again just attempting to wish away portions of the document that I hold dear. One that I believe should be followed, even if it is a bit uncomfortable sometimes.
 
RStringfield said:
Damo, that is bullshit. Nowhere in the constitution is there a grant of power to regulate drugs and treaty powers are no grant of such a power. Treaties were not intended to take precedence over the constitution. The founders make this clear. The foreign policy powers were given to the feds so that 13 (now 50) different ambassabors and sets of agreements would not be needed.

Since the power of treaties is granted in the constitution, there is no way the treaty power itself can invalidate its source without nullifying the treaty power.

Former Chief Justice of the United States Joseph Story...

[T]hough the power is thus general and unrestricted, it is not to be so construed as to destroy the fundamental laws of the state. A power given by the Constitution cannot be construed to authorize a destruction of other powers given in the same instrument.... A treaty to change the organization of the Government, or to annihilate its sovereignty, to overturn its republican form, or to deprive it of its constitutional powers, would be void; because it would destroy what it was designed merely to fulfill, the will of the people.
Click to expand...


From the UN Charter:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
Click to expand...


They can say whatever the hell they want about drug dispensers in LA, they have no authority to take any action.
 
Dungheap said:
From the UN Charter:




They can say whatever the hell they want about drug dispensers in LA, they have no authority to take any action.
Click to expand...
There, it is not within their power to limit that in LA. Good. I prefer working with it on that level than arguing about the treaty itself making law. It does that.
 
Damocles said:
No, the founders state that it "must" have meant. I read what the founders said. What they make clear is that they wish they had written that portion a bit better. Now, as for drugs. The SCOTUS has ruled that they are an interstate commerce issue. Therefore the Federal government has the right to regulate it. A treaty concerning the sale of it would be within their power to ratify.

You are again just attempting to wish away portions of the document that I hold dear. One that I believe should be followed, even if it is a bit uncomfortable sometimes.
Click to expand...

Your argument can not stand logically. The constitution is the source of the treaty power. For the feds to violate state powers through foreign treaty violates the original constitution and nullifies the treaty making power since the constitution that grants it is upended.

I don't care whether the FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS Court says it has power to regulate drugs as interestate commerce or not. It clearly does not have such a power.

The Constitution can serve as toilet paper if it becomes a tool of oppression, which is what you advance by turning on its head. You are not arguing for it to be followed.
 
RStringfield said:
Your argument can not stand logically. The constitution is the source of the treaty power. For the feds to violate state powers through foreign treaty violates the original constitution and nullifies the treaty making power since the constitution that grants it is upended.

I don't care whether the FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS Court says it has power to regulate drugs as interestate commerce or not. It clearly does not have such a power.

The Constitution can serve as toilet paper if it becomes a tool of oppression, which is what you advance by turning on its head. You are not arguing for it to be followed.
Click to expand...
The Feds are not violating state powers. The SCOTUS ruled long ago that drugs fall under Interstate commerce. Therefore it is within their power to regulate it. You can "not care" all you want but the SCOTUS is the final say.

I advance nothing other than following the document as it is written. In this case, they have the power to regulate what the Treaty supposedly regulated, therefore the power to advance the execution of the Treaty. That same document gave the SCOTUS power to decide things like whether they have the power to regulate things. That SCOTUS decided against your opinion.

As I said, if you don't like it work for change, but to pretend they haven't the power is ridiculous and ignores the constitution.

Do I think it is "wrong" to regulate it? Yes. Do I think they have the power? According to the Constitution they do.
 
RStringfield said:
Like I expect that to be followed faithfully. Let's start local.



You understand that people like Damo are arguing that our governments MUST take action on this. The UN need not do anything.
Click to expand...
I did not. I said that if it was a Treaty is has the power of law. Clearly that Treaty limits its reach and therefore let them enjoy their machines.
 
Damocles said:
Do I think it is "wrong" to regulate it? Yes. Do I think they have the power? According to the Constitution they do.
Click to expand...


According to the constitution they do not. According to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S court they do.

Supposedly you advance following the document as it is written in regards to the treaty power (though your argument is illogical as I have demonstrated), but not so much when it comes to state powers. Clearly interstate commerce is written to mean interstate commerce. It does not mean anything that might have some sort of butterfly effect on more than one state.

The constitutions meaning does not change as our language changes or as our national identity changes (from a federation of sovereign states to a single nation with a single identity) and one cannot follow the document "as it is written" without following the intent.
 
RStringfield said:
According to the constitution they do not. According to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S court they do.

Supposedly you advance following the document as it is written in regards to the treaty power (though your argument is illogical as I have demonstrated), but not so much when it comes to state powers. Clearly interstate commerce is written to mean interstate commerce. It does not mean anything that might have some sort of butterfly effect on more than one state.

The constitutions meaning does not change as our language changes or as our national identity changes (from a federation of sovereign states to a single nation with a single identity) and one cannot follow the document "as it is written" without following the intent.
Click to expand...
Again, that document gave the SCOTUS the power to decide. To pretend otherwise is pretense to again ignore it.

You disagree with their decision, but it doesn't change what is.

If the treaty regulated that, it would not be unconstitutional because the "Federal Government's Court" (you know that court that does have the authority to decide those things that you want to wish away) ruled that way.
 
Damocles said:
I did not. I said that if it was a Treaty is has the power of law. Clearly that Treaty limits its reach and therefore let them enjoy their machines.
Click to expand...

WTF RU talking about. You argue the treaty has the power of law. All I get from what DH posted is that the UN won't send in enforcers. Does not mean our enforcers are not obligated to act under your argument.
 
Damocles said:
Again, that document gave the SCOTUS the power to decide. To pretend otherwise is pretense to again ignore it.

You disagree with their decision, but it doesn't change what is.

If the treaty regulated that, it would not be unconstitutional because the "Federal Government's Court" (you know that court that does have the authority to decide those things that you want to wish away) ruled that way.
Click to expand...


So the federal government's court get to wish away whatever the fuck it wants and you are on board? The founders themselves tell you that the treaty power was not a grant of power to legislate but only a contractual power to make agreements for the several states with foreign states and you want it read in some robotic form void of intent or understanding.
 
RStringfield said:
WTF RU talking about. You argue the treaty has the power of law. All I get from what DH posted is that the UN won't send in enforcers. Does not mean our enforcers are not obligated to act under your argument.
Click to expand...
I said, if it is in the Treaty then it is law. This particular treaty specifies that it cannot reach to that level as posted earlier. Therefore THIS TREATY DOESN'T HAVE THE POWER ORIGINALLY ASCRIBED.

You seem smart sometimes, why do you abuse yourself this way?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top