Yeah, that makes sense. The UN Charter applies to Montana and Utah. But not to the Country.
Uh huh.
Drunk Driving lesson for Paris and other drunks
- Thread starter Robdawg
- Start date
Yeah, that makes sense. The UN Charter applies to Montana and Utah. But not to the Country.
Uh huh.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"The ceasefire was between UN member states (including Kuwait), and IRaq. "
AND the UNITED STATES.
AND the UNITED STATES.
As you yourself posted, it was up to the Security Council to remain apprised of the measure of compliance, and to determine what, if any, further action were needed.
It wasn't up to Bush, Cheney, Perle, or the US Government unilaterally.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Tell you what Cypress... why don't you answer the question I gave to Tiana....
Had the UN not approved action against Afghanistan... what should the US have done? Would our hands have been tied by the UN? It was not the government of Afghanistan that attacked us.... it was citizens within their borders. Had the UN said no.... what would you have done?
Had the UN not approved action against Afghanistan... what should the US have done? Would our hands have been tied by the UN? It was not the government of Afghanistan that attacked us.... it was citizens within their borders. Had the UN said no.... what would you have done?
One last time: The text you yourself posted, stated it was up to the Security Council to determine compliance, and potential punishment. Not the United States.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"As you yourself posted, it was up to the Security Council to remain apprised of the measure of compliance, and to determine what, if any, further action were needed.
It wasn't up to Bush, Cheney, Perle, or the US Government unilaterally."
And if the security council is blocked by members with veto power simply because they wanted the status quo to continue... what were we to do? If we felt that our national security was at stake... we have the right to take action.
It wasn't up to Bush, Cheney, Perle, or the US Government unilaterally."
And if the security council is blocked by members with veto power simply because they wanted the status quo to continue... what were we to do? If we felt that our national security was at stake... we have the right to take action.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"One last time: The text you yourself posted, stated it was up to the Security Council to determine compliance, and potential punishment. Not the United States."
One last time: yes, and if the security council and the UN fail... then we have a right to take action if we feel our national security is at risk.
One last time: yes, and if the security council and the UN fail... then we have a right to take action if we feel our national security is at risk.
UN Resolution 687:
The Security Council,…
34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
You keep going back to this argument. It was weak then and its even weaker today. Our backs were not up against the wall, we were not in any danger from Iraq and G.W. Bush knew it.
It wasn't at risk. We can only attack those who attack us, are on the verge of attacking us, or who have attacked our allies.
That's not only consistent with american values, it's consistent with international law and the US Constitution.
We always have the right to go to war for self defense. Don't be obtuse. The UN Charter is entirely reasonable on that point.
Iraq wasn't an imminent threat to us. 90% of the planet could see that. That's why we couldn't get security council consensus on invading iraq. Only Bush voters couldn't see that iraq wasn't an imminent threat. Or they did, but allowed bush to lie to them (and us) into a war, intentionally.
Last edited:
It was self defense. The taliban aided an abetted an attack on us. We had every right under international law to attack them. A UN resolution supporting us, was legal window dressing. It gave our attack international clout and authority. And that's a good thing.
Tell you what: if we are ever attacked by a country, and the Security Council says we DON'T 't have a right to defend ourselves, I'll be the first one to say congress should withdraw us from the UN charter.
Until then, I think 95% of the countries on the planet are capable of recognizing our right to legitimate self defense. And they demonstrated it with the Afghanistan resolution, as you kindly pointed out.
Not hard. The States cannot make a law against a Treaty. That is what that portion says. It does not limit the Federal Government, it limits the States.
Read the link that I put up long ago, also read the quotes from Jefferson and Hamilton (you know some of those guys that actually wrote it) that state that the US Constitution is not overruled by a Treaty. In fact they state that if it were possible for it to do so, there could be no actual Constitution.
A Declaration of War or Authorization would, in fact, still be within the power of the US Government. According to the Constitution the President need only get that permission.
It was for this reason that the US required the Veto Power that was given to the permanent members of the Security council before ratification. It was why it was included.
There is no limitation in the Constitution on that power. If 2/3 of the Senate votes to declare war, war is declared regardless of the reason. The Constitution does not limit the power to only defensive wars, etc.
I undestand that you want to divert this, by claiming only the states are bound to honor treaties the federal government signs.
True enough. Treaties signed by the united state goverment, have supremacy over state laws.
The united states is also compelled to abide by treaties. If we don't want to abide by them, we withdraw from them. We don't decided on a case by case basis, if we want to honor treaties we sign. Otherwise, no one would sign a treaty with us. Treaties constitute the supreme LAW of the land. If we don't like the treaty, we bail out of it.
Thomas Jefferson was clear on this point: "If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution. Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." Alexander Hamilton agreed: "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States."(2)
It isn't "diverting" to point out the actual language of the constitution, or the writings of those explaining what was put forward.
A Treaty cannot supercede the Constitution as it is made "under" the authority of that Constitution. It is, per the constitution, below the authority of that constitution.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Treaties are given equal footing with the Constitution, and with Laws passed by the federal Goverment.
The government of the United States is compelled to implement, enforce, and abide by the Constitution, and by Laws passed by the legislature and signed by the Executive.
They don't have a choice as to whether to abide by them or not.
Are you saying Treaties have a separate interpretation in the clause, relative to Laws and the Constitution? That our federal government IS compelled to abide by Laws and the Constitution - but NOT compelled to abide by Treaties?
Laughable.
Treaties are given equal footing with the Constitution, and with Laws passed by the federal Goverment.
The government of the United States is compelled to implement, enforce, and abide by the Constitution, and by Laws passed by the legislature and signed by the Executive.
They don't have a choice as to whether to abide by them or not.
Are you saying Treaties have a separate interpretation in the clause, relative to Laws and the Constitution? That our federal government IS compelled to abide by Laws and the Constitution - but NOT compelled to abide by Treaties?
Laughable.
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.
