The UN and Sovereignty

[Damocles]

No, Damo is trying to distort what was discussed. He first argued that the treaty itself carried it's own authority and that the machines should be removed. By whom, under who's direction? No real answer on that. There has to be legislative action to actually enforce any of it, which I pointed out, and water did as well, and he started repeating over and over that treaty is "law of the land" like some braindead moron.

Then he started arguing that the power is found in the courts "interstate commerce" ruling. That still does not empower anyone to act here. There has to be legislation. Of course, I am sure there is already existing legislation (which I mentioned early on) but that is not the point since the UN prick implied the treaty empowered action alone and Damo wasted no time in agreeing.

After that he started insulting anyone that disagreed as being unaware of reality.

Again, I recognized how you would think that is what I said, that is why I reiterated. Come down off your high horse. Let yourself calm down, let's discuss this issue rather than rehash the same thing over again.

I am sorry I gave that impression to you. Now, put up or shut up. How do you propose we change this without first changing the SCOTUS?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Growng pot in your backyard = interstate commerce

 

[Damocles]

Growng pot in your backyard = interstate commerce

That is what they ruled. Seriously.

 

[Kamala Trump]

So does the constitution say treaty becomes the power of law? What's the truth here?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

That is what they ruled. Seriously.

The current court goes way overboard on what is considered interstate commerce.

 

[Damocles]

So does the constitution say treaty becomes the power of law? What's the truth here?

It says, and I quote, that it becomes "The Law of the Land". It then goes on to say it supersedes any and all laws that violate it.

 

[Damocles]

The current court goes way overboard on what is considered interstate commerce.

We agree. What Strings and I apparently disagree on is approach on how to fix the issue.

 

[Kamala Trump]

It says, and I quote, that it becomes "The Law of the Land". It then goes on to say it supersedes any and all laws that violate it.

How do you feel about that? DO you think we should change it to fully franchise the people, instead of allowing a subset of the usual legislators approve policy?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The people in Los Angeles are violating the law. It's just a good thing the federal government is not enforcing the law very well. That's my opinion. It's not like the treaty has no weight, however.

 

[Damocles]

How do you feel about that? DO you think we should change it to fully franchise the people, instead of allowing a subset of the usual legislators approve policy?

I do think that Treaties should be ratified by States as well as the Senate (a change). And that it should always state in all Treaties that they cannot supersede the Authority of the US within its own borders, or the constitution.

 

[Timshel]

We agree. What Strings and I apparently disagree on is approach on how to fix the issue.

No, what we disagree on is whether anyone should dare mention the ruling is unconstitutional or challenge it's constitutionality. That's what I did and that's what you objected to. Now you can claim that I believe all that is needed is for me to say it is unconstitutional and then all change is accomplished. But that is anywhere close to the truth.

For all intents and purposes, you think we should only challenge it on pragmatic reasons and be careful to never imply we disagree with the court. Frankly, I don't even understand how your view would lead to any overturning of previous rulings since the courts job is not to rule whether a law is good based pragmatic considerations. They rule on constitutionality. If no one ever challenges previous rulings they can never get overturned.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Stringfield, it seems the constitution says treaties become law. DO you agree with that? It seems the "ruling" is irrelevant.

 

[Damocles]

No, what we disagree on is whether anyone should dare mention the ruling is unconstitutional or challenge it's constitutionality. That's what I did and that's what you objected to. Now you can claim that I believe all that is needed is for me to say it is unconstitutional and then all change is accomplished. But that is anywhere close to the truth.

For all intents and purposes, you think we should only challenge it on pragmatic reasons and be careful to never imply we disagree with the court. Frankly, I don't even understand how your view would lead to any overturning of previous rulings since the courts job is not to rule whether a law is good based pragmatic considerations. They rule on constitutionality. If no one ever challenges previous rulings they can never get overturned.

You are repeating again and wasting our time. You haven't bothered catching up. Thanks for playing, but you won't bait me back into that inanity, no matter how many times you try.

 

[Timshel]

I do think that Treaties should be ratified by States as well as the Senate (a change).

We should repeal the 17th.

And that it should always state in all Treaties that they cannot supersede the Authority of the US within its own borders, or the constitution.

It would be a good safety, but they cannot anyway under current court rulings. The Bricker Amendment would be better.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I do think that Treaties should be ratified by States as well as the Senate (a change). And that it should always state in all Treaties that they cannot supersede the Authority of the US within its own borders, or the constitution.

They can't anyway. They're just like regular laws.

BTW, Los Angeles and California aren't violating the constitution. They have no responsibility enforce pot laws. The federal government (under current law) can enforce it in Californias territory, however, they must do so with their own resources, which they currently aren't providing.

 

[Timshel]

You are repeating again and wasting our time. You haven't bothered catching up. Thanks for playing, but you won't bait me back into that inanity, no matter how many times you try.

I have no desire to return to it. Just setting the record straight. You are incorrect that we disagree so much on ways to change it or that that was the matter of contention.

 

[Kamala Trump]

They can't anyway. They're just like regular laws.

BTW, Los Angeles and California aren't violating the constitution. They have no responsibility enforce pot laws. The federal government (under current law) can enforce it in Californias territory, however, they must do so with their own resources, which they currently aren't providing.

I believe local cops are required to enforce federal law. Isn't that true?

 

[Timshel]

They can't anyway. They're just like regular laws.

BTW, Los Angeles and California aren't violating the constitution. They have no responsibility enforce pot laws. The federal government (under current law) can enforce it in Californias territory, however, they must do so with their own resources, which they currently aren't providing.

Damo does not apparently understand the REALITY of the division of powers. Either that or he believes the treaty itself should go into LA and remove the vending machines. Maybe the constitution could join in and help.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I believe local cops are required to enforce federal law. Isn't that true?

Local cops may cooperate with the feds, but there's no constitutional responsibility for them to.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Local cops may cooperate with the feds, but there's no constitutional responsibility for them to.

I think you're wrong. I think they are obligated to enforce federal law.