Drunk Driving lesson for Paris and other drunks

Damocles said:
No, they are not. The constitution specifically states that they are "under" the authority of the Constitution. They do not supercede, nor can they change, the actual Constitution. Once again, it was the reason for the Veto. The UN therefore could not, on its own, without agreement from the US overrule the US positions. It is what makes the UN Treaty constitutional.

It cannot override the authority of the constitution, as it is ratified under the power of the constitution. "under" being the operative word.
Click to expand...


I never said a treaty overrides the constitution. It is the equivalent of a legislative act, enacted pursuant to the constitution. Ergo, the United States is compeled to abide by treaty obligations it is a signatory to.

This isn't 1789 anymore damo. The SCOTUS has ruled on this. Multiple times. It considers a treaty to be the equivalent to an act of legislation. A legal contract between two, or more, nations.
 
Damo,

Do you want to write to the Mexican and Canadian consulates, and explain to them that in our system of Government, we are free to sign treaties like NAFTA, but we don't have to legally abide by our contractual obligations. That there is no legal precendent or authority in the United States, compelling us to abide by the treaty? ;)

Of course you won't write them. Because you know full well, that the only way we don't honor treaties, is by letting them lapse, or formally withdrawing from them.
 
For 200 years, the Federal Government has formally terminated treaties (either by Executive act or Legislative act) , when it no longer wished to abide by treaties.


Why would there be a 200-year old formal process for withdrawing from treaties if, as Damo claims, treaties have no legal or contractual basis in United States law? That we can abide by them, or ignore them, at a whim as the mood suits us?


Termination of Treaties as International Compacts. - page 487 to 490


United States Government Website for the Constitution:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/art2.html
Click to expand...



Damo, I would agree with you, that if the United States Executive or Legislature declared that we were withdrawing from the UN Charter.

Since we haven't withdrawn from it, we are under legal obligation to abide by it.
 
Cypress said:
For 200 years, the Federal Government has formally terminated treaties (either by Executive act or Legislative act) , when it no longer wished to abide by treaties.


Why would there be a 200-year old formal process for withdrawing from treaties if, as Damo claims, treaties have no legal or contractual basis in United States law? That we can abide by them, or ignore them, at a whim as the mood suits us?






Damo, I would agree with you, that if the United States Executive or Legislature declared that we were withdrawing from the UN Charter.

Since we haven't withdrawn from it, we are under legal obligation to abide by it.
Click to expand...
One more time. Treaties are binding as long as they do not change/alter the constitution itself. Hence the need for the veto, so that the UN rules could not overrule the powers granted our government in the constitution. There is no limit on the authority of the Congress to declare war other than the 2/3 vote. If the UN attempted to rule against the Constitutional power of the government, it would simply be votoed. This allowed the government to enter the treaty without contradiction.

The sovereignty of the US is not usurped by the UN. It would take a Constitutional amendment for that to be done and be constitutional.

The whole, "this war is illegal" can be argued on the unconstitutionality of the War Powers Act, but not on the "UN is the Boss" angle. The Constitution is above any treaty signed under its authority, it always will be so long as there is no Amendment. Just as legislation passed by the Congress can be ruled unconstitutional, so too could a Treaty be ruled such and thus null and void. The SCOTUS has never ruled that a Treaty is more than legislative authority, and as such can be ruled on its constitutionality of itself.

You may wish for Treaties to be above the Constitution, but they are not.
 
I never said the UN is the boss, or that the UN trumps the constitution.

I said that we - our government - signed a treaty stating that we would never attack another country except in case of self-defense, to prevent an imminent attack, or to aid an ally under attack. That treaty imposes a contractual obligation on us - per the US Constitution and court precendent.

200 years of american history shows precedent for that. We are not free to ignore that contractual obligation whenever the fancy strikes us.

If we do not want the contractual obligation, we withdraw from the treaty. Bush hasn't withdrawn us from the UN Charter. So he violated our treaty obligation by attacking iraq.
 
The UN seems to have become pretty handy to those who used to preach for its's demise. A war scapegoat :)
I guess the next thing is to cry that we need to pull out of the UN because it caused us to invade Iraq ?
 
Robdawg said:
When your drunk and need to get home after a long night of boozing or partying it up, here are a few guides to help you get to your destination.

1. 10 & 2... ALWAYS unless in regard to #2

2. Smoke lots of cigarettes as this helps to get the smell of alcohol from your breath. if you don't smoke or hate smoking, your drunk, youll forget it in the morning, i reccomend newports b/c they are strong and minty. Chewing gum or sucking on a hard candy will also help but should be used in conjuction w/ the cigarettes.

3. Drive teh speed limit. this is how most get caught is that they feel invincible and speed. you don't want to give the cop any reason to pull you over. to appear not suspicious you may drive up to 5 miles over the speed limit. if the speed limit is 65 on the highway, go 70, BUT NOT OVER 70!!!

4. Wear your seatbelt, its important to be safe, even if your drunk driving. and another reason how not to get pulled over

5. Don't use your cell phone, studies show that talking on the phone while driving is equivalent to being drunk, but your already drunk, so don't wanna be double drunk!!

6. If your too drunk to see straight, follow the line to your left and if necessary drive with one eye closed so you don't see double.


follow these rules while drunk and youll never get a dui.
Click to expand...

Actually, breathalyzer tests don't detect the alcohol in your mouth. That would be useless.

It detects the vapors of the alcohol evaporating out of your lungs... which is impossible to get rid of. You could try mouthwash, I've heard that works, but only because you could use the mouthwash as an excuse. And I still doubt that would get you off on a breathalyzer test, it only works with parents.
 
Cypress said:
For 200 years, the Federal Government has formally terminated treaties (either by Executive act or Legislative act) , when it no longer wished to abide by treaties.


Why would there be a 200-year old formal process for withdrawing from treaties if, as Damo claims, treaties have no legal or contractual basis in United States law? That we can abide by them, or ignore them, at a whim as the mood suits us?






Damo, I would agree with you, that if the United States Executive or Legislature declared that we were withdrawing from the UN Charter.

Since we haven't withdrawn from it, we are under legal obligation to abide by it.
Click to expand...

If treaties are treated as normal legislation then they could be overriden by other normal legislation.

Most 'treaties' today, however, is just the president going to congress and asking it propose laws that agree with treaties he's signed. It has the same affect as a treaty but doesn't require a supermajority. It also isn't unconstitutional.
 
Watermark said:
If treaties are treated as normal legislation then they could be overriden by other normal legislation.

Most 'treaties' today, however, is just the president going to congress and asking it propose laws that agree with treaties he's signed. It has the same affect as a treaty but doesn't require a supermajority. It also isn't unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

right, it is just the Republican way of doing business.
 
Let me get this straight:

Saddam is required to comply with international law, but we aren't. Saddam is not free to disregard international law when it suits iraqi national interests, but we are.

Republicans on this thread say we are free to ignore the UN charter when it serves our national interest. There is no legal or contractual basis for us to follow international agreements we sign.

Iraq on the other hand, had no such freedom. UN Resolution 687 (The UN-Iraq ceasefire in 1991), was an instrument of international law; adopted in accordance with the mandates of the UN Security Council. Iraq was compelled to abide by it. They didn't have the right to determine for themselves whether to comply or not. Evidently our constittuion allows us complete freedom to disregard international agreements, but the Iraqi constitution does not allow them the same freedom.


See, this is why most of the world hates bush supporters and republicans. They are like 12 year old children: "The rules apply to everyone else, but they don't apply to us!".

Frankly, I can't imagine a better way to turn the United States into a rougue nation, and one of the most hated nations on earth, than to follow the tenets of this republican philosopy.
 
Last edited:
My sole point was that a Treaty cannot supercede the Constitution. You agreed to that. I'm happy enough with that.
 
Damocles said:
My sole point was that a Treaty cannot supercede the Constitution. You agreed to that. I'm happy enough with that.
Click to expand...


Right. A treaty is not above the constitution. It is at the same level as a law, or legislation, adopted in accordance with the constitution. As such, we are under a contractual obligation to abide by it, until such time as we withdraw from the treaty.

I'm glad we agree finally :clink:
 
Cypress said:
Let me get this straight:

Saddam is required to comply with international law, but we aren't. Saddam is not free to disregard international law when it suits iraqi national interests, but we are.
Click to expand...

I think that sums it up nicely.
 
Robdawg said:
When your drunk and need to get home after a long night of boozing or partying it up, here are a few guides to help you get to your destination.

1. 10 & 2... ALWAYS unless in regard to #2

2. Smoke lots of cigarettes as this helps to get the smell of alcohol from your breath. if you don't smoke or hate smoking, your drunk, youll forget it in the morning, i reccomend newports b/c they are strong and minty. Chewing gum or sucking on a hard candy will also help but should be used in conjuction w/ the cigarettes.

3. Drive teh speed limit. this is how most get caught is that they feel invincible and speed. you don't want to give the cop any reason to pull you over. to appear not suspicious you may drive up to 5 miles over the speed limit. if the speed limit is 65 on the highway, go 70, BUT NOT OVER 70!!!

4. Wear your seatbelt, its important to be safe, even if your drunk driving. and another reason how not to get pulled over

5. Don't use your cell phone, studies show that talking on the phone while driving is equivalent to being drunk, but your already drunk, so don't wanna be double drunk!!

6. If your too drunk to see straight, follow the line to your left and if necessary drive with one eye closed so you don't see double.


follow these rules while drunk and youll never get a dui.
Click to expand...


Q. do you know what they call people who practice these 'rules'?

A. Convicts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top