The UN and Sovereignty

[Damocles]

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.

Strawman. I would promote hiring people for the WH that would appoint people that apply the rules as I would. However, it doesn't change reality.

You keep on about the "treaty power" when in reality, the SCOTUS ruled long ago that the Feds CAN regulate this (what you are now complaining about) and therefore a Treaty on it would be well within their current legal reach.

If you don't like it there are several ways to change it. But whining that they don't have the legal reach is weak. We already lost that argument where it counts... in the SCOTUS.

 

[Timshel]

Strawman. I would promote hiring people for the WH that would appoint people that apply the rules as I would. However, it doesn't change reality.

The reality that you are not much more than a nationalist? I am concerned with limiting state powers in the real world not fantasy land where you are President or get to hire the P.

You keep on about the "treaty power" when in reality, the SCOTUS ruled long ago that the Feds CAN regulate this (what you are now complaining about) and therefore a Treaty on it would be well within their current legal reach.

No, I am still arguing against the idea that the treaty power gives legislative power to the feds. It does not. It is a contractual power only. If the feds wish to outlaw pot vending machines (obviously they are already illegal) then they can take action against my objections. This stroy relates something new. The idea that this fucking prick foreign power can tell us we can't change our drug laws. And you jump to agreement.

If you don't like it there are several ways to change it. But whining that they don't have the legal reach is weak. We already lost that argument where it counts... in the SCOTUS.

On the specific of interestate commerce.... And we can fight it again. Do you not understand that legal precedent can be overturned?

Your argument, and that of other nationalists, is that we must ignore the violation of the rule of law and the constitution, in regards to a clear stretching of the commerce clause well beyond its clear intenet or meaning, to uphold the rule of law, in regards to the powers of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT's court. Can't be done anyway. Either you support the relu of law and the Constitution or you don't.

But fuck them! Why should I give a shit that the states power is worshipped and respected when they violate their moral grounding?

 

[Damocles]

The reality that you are not much more than a nationalist? I am concerned with limiting state powers in the real world not fantasy land where you are President or get to hire the P.

We all hire the P. Don't be a doofus. I was using euphemism about voting for the right people.

No, I am still arguing against the idea that the treaty power gives legislative power to the feds. It does not. It is a contractual power only. If the feds wish to outlaw pot vending machines (obviously they are already illegal) then they can take action against my objections. This stroy relates something new. The idea that this fucking prick foreign power can tell us we can't change our drug laws. And you jump to agreement.

Then what does "Law of the Land" mean? It is preposterous to say that it isn't a law when the Constitution says it is. It doesn't allow them to make laws past what is already within their power, but it does have the weight of law per the Constitution.

On the specific of interestate commerce.... And we can fight it again. Do you not understand that legal precedent can be overturned?

I do, hence the statement, "Hire the right man for the WH" before... Are you this dense on purpose or is it natural?

Your argument, and that of other nationalists, is that we must ignore the violation of the rule of law and the constitution, in regards to a clear stretching of the commerce clause well beyond its clear intenet or meaning, to uphold the rule of law, in regards to the powers of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT's court. Can't be done anyway. Either you support the relu of law and the Constitution or you don't.

This is inane. I simply speak of current legality and promote voting for people who would choose better Justices. Pretending that they don't have the power to do what they do ignores the document you pretend to follow.

But fuck them! Why should I give a shit that the states power is worshipped and respected when they violate their moral grounding?

?

 

[Timshel]

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?

DH posted something about the UN charter, not the applicable treaty. Nothing in that part of the charter changes your argument.

 

[Damocles]

DH posted something about the UN charter, not the applicable treaty. Nothing in that part of the charter changes your argument.

My argument is, the Constitution says that Treaties, once ratified, are the "Law of the Land". It isn't hard to understand what the document says.

I then argue if you want to change the legal reality that Drugs are considered to be "Interstate Commerce" we need a whole different type of person in the WH because the SCOTUS must be changed.

You pretend that means I am some "nationalist". I am a pragmatist, the legal reality is that this particular portion of law can be regulated by the Federal government, that your argument holds no legal water at this time.

This is why the Libertarian Party can't get votes, nobody is willing to simply recognize reality.

 

[Damocles]

The L party might be able to gain membership and votes if it didn't constantly have as its largest spokesperson some educated idiot who thinks Driver's licences are illegal.

 

[Timshel]

Then what does "Law of the Land" mean? It is preposterous to say that it isn't a law when the Constitution says it is. It doesn't allow them to make laws past what is already within their power, but it does have the weight of law per the Constitution.

You are backtracking now. It means it is contractually binding. It does not create a law. A treaty to limit the sale of marijuana CANNOT create domestic law since it cannot determine penalties, etc..

I do, hence the statement, "Hire the right man for the WH" before... Are you this dense on purpose or is it natural?

But we are not to argue our objection to the previous ruling? I am not to argue the court is wrong? I should just hope that some other agent of the state will fix things? Why?

This is inane. I simply speak of current legality and promote voting for people who would choose better Justices. Pretending that they don't have the power to do what they do ignores the document you pretend to follow.

The Constitution is not biblical law. I really don't care what it says. It's moral basis is that it hopes to protect the right of indivdiuals. So long as it is doing that I am happy to support it. But when it violates that principle (i.e., slavery) it is a document for evil.

Sure, it may be best to amend or change the overlords than blow it all up, but I am not going to sit here and praise its creation of the state while ignoring its defense of the indivdual, which is exactly what you are doing by arguing that we must respect the court first.

Fuck the court! They are wrong. Do they hold power? Sure. But I have no need to pretend they are correct morally or otherwise.

You seem to worship the constitutions creation of the state as its primary value. I do not share that perspective.

 

[Timshel]

My argument is, the Constitution says that Treaties, once ratified, are the "Law of the Land". It isn't hard to understand what the document says.

I then argue if you want to change the legal reality that Drugs are considered to be "Interstate Commerce" we need a whole different type of person in the WH because the SCOTUS must be changed.

You pretend that means I am some "nationalist". I am a pragmatist, the legal reality is that this particular portion of law can be regulated by the Federal government, that your argument holds no legal water at this time.

This is why the Libertarian Party can't get votes, nobody is willing to simply recognize reality.

You got smacked down, wet yourself and returned to your corner.

The LP gets no votes because pretend libertarians never get it and return to voting for fucking fascist, like McCain. If he does win, I am sure they will claim they were fooled all over again.

Nobody is arguing that there is no need to work within the system. But arguments must be advanced against the constitutionality of such laws. To argue that the consitution is what the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S court says it is, is not pragmatism. It is submission.

For all practical purposes, yes of course, the court gets the final say. That is, until it angers the people enough that we make the final say. Your "constitutional" defense of the Supremes power to make rulings counter to the constitution, is an argument that the merits of the constitution are solely in creating the state.

 

[Damocles]

You are backtracking now. It means it is contractually binding. It does not create a law. A treaty to limit the sale of marijuana CANNOT create domestic law since it cannot determine penalties, etc..

However, it can require that States follow certain procedures and rules. Hence "regulation"... Pretending that it cannot, or that it isn't a law when the Constitution specifically states that it is is pretense only.

But we are not to argue our objection to the previous ruling? I am not to argue the court is wrong? I should just hope that some other agent of the state will fix things? Why?

Just saying, "They can't do this because.." is rubbish. You can say, the ruling that allows them to do this is wrong and we should therefore work to change that through legal means... (pragmatic). Pretending it holds no legal weight and should be ignored (pretense)... See the difference?

The Constitution is not biblical law. I really don't care what it says. It's moral basis is that it hopes to protect the right of indivdiuals. So long as it is doing that I am happy to support it. But when it violates that principle (i.e., slavery) it is a document for evil.

However, using the power and saying, "They can't do that because..." and using it for one means then ignoring it for another is preposterous.

And I do care what it says, it is that social contract we have agreed to abide by. If you want to change it, there are ways of doing so.

Sure, it may be best to amend or change the overlords than blow it all up, but I am not going to sit here and praise its creation of the state while ignoring its defense of the indivdual, which is exactly what you are doing by arguing that we must respect the court first.

No, I am saying being pragmatic is important if you want people to agree. To jump from, "I don't agree with that ruling..." to "They have no right..." is simply ignoring that social contract and is the reason people often think Libertarians are "fringe", even on issues where they agree with them. Natural allies become "enemies" because the Libertarians refuse to recognize what they otherwise almost worship when it becomes inconvenient to them.

Fuck the court! They are wrong. Do they hold power? Sure. But I have no need to pretend they are correct morally or otherwise.

You seem to worship the constitutions creation of the state as its primary value. I do not share that perspective.

When did I say they were "correct" I said that the contract we follow here gives them the power to make those decisions. If you want them changed you must vote for people who will change the face of the court. Not pretend that they don't have the power.

Being pragmatic is not being "nationalistic" it is just being realistic. Such rulings hold no moral value of themselves. I don't argue it is "right", just what the Constitution allows.

We began this conversation on the constitutionality of regulation because of a Treaty. I have explained why it is possible. I didn't argue the "moral value" of it, only the actual legality of it.

 

[Timshel]

However, it can require that States follow certain procedures and rules. Hence "regulation"... Pretending that it cannot, or that it isn't a law when the Constitution specifically states that it is is pretense only.

Any law/regulations basis must be the Consitution, rather than the treaty itself. Your initial argument implied that they should remove the machines based on the treaty alone.

Just saying, "They can't do this because.." is rubbish. You can say, the ruling that allows them to do this is wrong and we should therefore work to change that through legal means... (pragmatic). Pretending it holds no legal weight and should be ignored (pretense)... See the difference?

It holds no legal weight. It should be ignored. I am not pretending. Local/state/federal officers should ignore the laws. Local/state/federal courts should ignore the laws as should juries at every level.

That would be a far more pragmatic means of bringing about change than sitting around waiting for old men to die and hoping that the folks we elect will appoint replacements that will limit the power of the elected.

However, using the power and saying, "They can't do that because..." and using it for one means then ignoring it for another is preposterous.

Huh? I am guessing you are arguing that I am somehow picking and choosing which parts to follow? Nope, that is you. You are clearly arguing that the grant of power to the Feds' court is more important than the limit placed on the Feds.

And I do care what it says, it is that social contract we have agreed to abide by. If you want to change it, there are ways of doing so.

Again, you argue for the rule of law in defense of the Federal government and against it in defense of the indivdiual and states rights. You destroy your own supposed premise and are eventually just a supporter of the national government (i.e., a nationalist).

No, I am saying being pragmatic is important if you want people to agree. To jump from, "I don't agree with that ruling..." to "They have no right..." is simply ignoring that social contract and is the reason people often think Libertarians are "fringe", even on issues where they agree with them. Natural allies become "enemies" because the Libertarians refuse to recognize what they otherwise almost worship when it becomes inconvenient to them.

First off, anyone with a half a brain or more should be able to pick up on the fact that the "rights/powers/they can't because" arguments are aobut constitutional authority. Do I really need to spell that out for you every time?

And no, I am not ignoring what is not convenient. If the court ruled tomorrow that state laws against marijuana were invalid I would disagree with them and argue they had violated their power.

When did I say they were "correct" I said that the contract we follow here gives them the power to make those decisions. If you want them changed you must vote for people who will change the face of the court. Not pretend that they don't have the power.

Being pragmatic is not being "nationalistic" it is just being realistic.

Your argument is that I should not say they are wrong or made a ruling counter to the intent/word of the constitution or have violated their rightful powers.

What you seem to mean by pragmatic is laying down. To pretend the court is some unquestionable filter of constitutionality. To keep voting for one fascist after the next hoping that one will finally limit his own power.

 

[Damocles]

Any law/regulations basis must be the Consitution, rather than the treaty itself. Your initial argument implied that they should remove the machines based on the treaty alone.

If the treaty covered it, it would be law.

It holds no legal weight. It should be ignored. I am not pretending. Local/state/federal officers should ignore the laws. Local/state/federal courts should ignore the laws as should juries at every level.

That would be a far more pragmatic means of bringing about change than sitting around waiting for old men to die and hoping that the folks we elect will appoint replacements that will limit the power of the elected.

If you say so. I don't think you will get people to agree, hence it is not pragmatic.

Huh? I am guessing you are arguing that I am somehow picking and choosing which parts to follow? Nope, that is you. You are clearly arguing that the grant of power to the Feds' court is more important than the limit placed on the Feds.

You are quite literally arguing which parts you want to ignore. In this case you wish to ignore that Treaties have the weight of law per the constitution.

Again, you argue for the rule of law in defense of the Federal government and against it in defense of the indivdiual and states rights. You destroy your own supposed premise and are eventually just a supporter of the national government (i.e., a nationalist).

Again, I do not. I argue that most will follow this, therefore the only pragmatic means of change is what I propose, or revolution. I do not propose revolution.

First off, anyone with a half a brain or more should be able to pick up on the fact that the "rights/powers/they can't because" arguments are aobut constitutional authority. Do I really need to spell that out for you every time?

Which was my POINT, how disingenuous can you get? You were the one getting into whether it was "moral" or not, not me.

And no, I am not ignoring what is not convenient. If the court ruled tomorrow that state laws against marijuana were invalid I would disagree with them and argue they had violated their power.



Your argument is that I should not say they are wrong or made a ruling counter to the intent/word of the constitution or have violated their rightful powers.

I have not argued that. I said you should recognize reality and therefore work for change in a way that will work rather than pretending they have no legal authority.

What you seem to mean by pragmatic is laying down. To pretend the court is some unquestionable filter of constitutionality. To keep voting for one fascist after the next hoping that one will finally limit his own power.

What I mean by pragmatic is doing it in a way that will work rather than sounding like AHZ on a binger.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Limiting ourselves to the seemingly pragmatic choices is how brainwash is perpetuated through generations.

 

[Damocles]

Limiting ourselves to the seemingly pragmatic choices is how brainwash is perpetuated through generations.

Standing around spitting into the wind is how good ideas are lost to washcloths.

(Look I can pretend to wisdom using euphemism without evidence.)

Understanding reality is the first step in creating change.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Standing around spitting into the wind is how good ideas are lost to washcloths.

(Look I can pretend to wisdom using euphemism without evidence.)

Except yours makes no sense at all.

 

[Epicurus]

Yeah this is one of many reasons I think we will not see the end of the Drug War in our lifetimes.

It's pretty clearly national law now.

 

[Timshel]

If the treaty covered it, it would be law.

You are not clear here. No, it would not be law without necessary legisltative action. Nor is the treaty a grant of power to legislate. That is, unless the power is granted to the federal government no law can be passed to satisfy the treaty.

If you say so. I don't think you will get people to agree, hence it is not pragmatic.

Probably not, and we probably are not going to get elected federal officials to appoint judges that will limit their own power, especially when we fail to argue the constitutional vailidity of that power, as you suggest.

You are quite literally arguing which parts you want to ignore. In this case you wish to ignore that Treaties have the weight of law per the constitution.

I've been clear and you are ignoring what I have stated. They are not legislation. They are not grants of power to legislate. For instance, the federal government cannot ban guns or the first amendment based on a treaty. Neither can they assume powers not granted through the enumeration.

Which was my POINT, how disingenuous can you get? You were the one getting into whether it was "moral" or not, not me.

??? What do you think arguments about rights are if they are not moral arguments? Rights are moral concepts as is the notion of a JUST government. What do you see as disingenuous? It is you being disingenuous as you pretend that my arguments against the validity of these actions are arguments against the reality that the state may do just about whatever it wants.

I have not argued that. I said you should recognize reality and therefore work for change in a way that will work rather than pretending they have no legal authority.

Again, they have no legal authority. Not pretending. They are backed by force alone.

And yes, you are arguing that we are all supposed to play along with the system and not question the authority of the state. That is exactly what you are saying when you say "pretending they have no legal authority." Isn't that clear?

What I mean by pragmatic is doing it in a way that will work rather than sounding like AHZ on a binger.

You are the one that sounds like nAHZi, right along with your love of the state.

You have been all over the map and you are still not clear what your complaint is. It is important to state why laws are wrong or unjust. We should not be meek and mild in saying the Drug War is not within the powers of the federal government. Nobody will ever be appointed judge to rule the feds have overstepped when no one even argues that they have overstepped or when they do so while saying whatever the Supremes say is properly constitutional.

My arguments here against unjust laws being heaved upon us by foreign powers is not from AssHat. It's from the Declaration of Indepenence. I really can't see how anyone who is not retarded has trouble seeing why it's a bad deal to empower unelected foreign bodies to legislate in the US and that is NOT what the treaty power is. You will not even find much support on this from your beloved court.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

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.

Tell them to "do something about it."

A treaty is regular law and can be ammended by regular law in the home nation. There's nothing that forces us to agree with every part of the treaty 100% of the time, or makes it impossible for us to change it at some future point in time.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

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.

Treaties can be ammended at will by regular law. If the federal government chooses not to enforce a certin law very well, it's no more unconstitutional than if they chose not to enforce anything else. You're being a fucking idiot.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

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, it is the law of the land, and congress has not chosen to enforce it very well. There's nothing in the constitution that says laws have to be enforced well or at all. If congress signs a treaty banning pot vending machines, but doesn't put much money into getting rid of them, then that's perfectly constitutional.

 

[Kamala Trump]

I think what's upsetting is how treaties are like a backdoor to getting laws in without the full legislative process being involved. It may be constitutional, but it's a bunch of sneaky bullshit that effectively disenfranchises people further.