The UN and Sovereignty

[FUCK THE POLICE]

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.

In modern times the congress really doesn't ever pass "treaties", but executive-legislative agreements, which is basically like a regular law, except it's passed in several nations that work together on it. We still aren't bound to the agreement permanently.

 

[Scut Farkus]

In modern times the congress really doesn't ever pass "treaties", but executive-legislative agreements, which is basically like a regular law, except it's passed in several nations that work together on it. We still aren't bound to the agreement permanently.

WHatever. You're boring.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

WHatever. You're boring.

A treaty is even more difficult to pass than regular law. A legislative-executive agreement is as difficult to pass as a regular law. You're little rant up there doesn't make much sense on that ground.

 

[Damocles]

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.

You are wrong. It is the 'Law of the Land'. That is a direct quote from the Constitution. There is no equivocation. While they are limited to Federal powers under the constitution, this is law and it directly says it is. It even says it supercedes previous law.

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.

There is little to argue the validity from. The document gives them the power to choose. Now, you could create a constitutional convention, you can amend the document, you can do many things, but just saying that there is no real power there is not a legal argument with any legs whatsoever.

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.

Now, you are being foolish. It is legislation, limited to the constitution like any other legislation. It even says that it supercedes previous law, in that same document.

??? 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.

Legal arguments are not based on morality. I address why it is legal for them to do that. You address whether or not it is "right" for that to be legal. They are two separate arguments. My point is simply legality, yours is whether it is "right" to be legal. Whether it is "right" or not, the constitution is the current social contract.

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?

No, I am arguing that if you really want change, there are two ways to go. But pretending that it isn't legal isn't one of them. Legality and "right" are two separate issues. If you don't think it is "right" for it to be legal then you must seek change. Change does not come from denying reality.

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

LOL. Rubbish. He even chimed in on your side. Denying reality is the basis of AHZ's arguments.

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.

I have been consistent. This is what the constitution says. They may choose "wrong", but the reality is that those 9 people have the power to choose. If you want that changed you change the social contract by one of two means. Either working within the system or through armed revolt.

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.

As I said, your argument has been they are "wrong" to be laws (moral argument). Mine is that they are legally laws because of the social contract the States ratified into being long ago (legal argument).

Regardless of whether they are "morally" right, they are laws.

 

[Scut Farkus]

Denying reality is the basis of AHZ's arguments.

What reality do I deny?

 

[Damocles]

What reality do I deny?

The part where human nature makes people reject your arguments because of the way you present them. "Pragmatism" that is what you reject. The reality that other people react negatively to a poorly presented idea, even if it is true.

 

[Scut Farkus]

The part where human nature makes people reject your arguments because of the way you present them. "Pragmatism" that is what you reject. The reality that other people react negatively to a poorly presented idea, even if it is true.

My presentation is fine. It's that the content is truly horrific. Thanks for caring though. I reject your stylistic advice.

 

[Damocles]

My presentation is fine. It's that the content is truly horrific. Thanks for caring though. I reject your stylistic advice.

And thus will be relegated to "naugahyde" jokes and people laughing at the nut. It's all good to ignore a different approach, but the reality you ignore is people's reaction to it and why they won't listen.

 

[Scut Farkus]

And thus will be relegated to "naugahyde" jokes and people laughing at the nut. It's all good to ignore a different approach, but the reality you ignore is people's reaction to it and why they won't listen.

Many do. Many have. That's why you're so upset and hysterical.

 

[Damocles]

Many do. Many have. That's why you're so upset and hysterical.

Hysterically laughing. "Many" are the fringe only when not compared to the number of people that are not part of it. If you want more people to listen, you present it differently. If you want more people to buy coke you don't make it look bad by ignoring human nature.

 

[Scut Farkus]

Hysterically laughing. "Many" are the fringe only when not compared to the number of people that are not part of it. If you want more people to listen, you present it differently. If you want more people to buy coke you don't make it look bad by ignoring human nature.

WOrry about your own posts, ok, sweetums?

 

[Damocles]

WOrry about your own posts, ok, sweetums?

I do. However, I also tend to think about my friends and how they are perceived and whether people are effective getting the message across about their beliefs. I use the experience of others to learn, and watch what is effective and what is not.

 

[Scut Farkus]

I do. However, I also tend to think about my friends and how they are perceived and whether people are effective getting the message across about their beliefs. I use the experience of others to learn, and watch what is effective and what is not.

I think your analysis is off on this one. I correct you, as a friend.

 

[Timshel]

You are wrong. It is the 'Law of the Land'. That is a direct quote from the Constitution. There is no equivocation. While they are limited to Federal powers under the constitution, this is law and it directly says it is. It even says it supercedes previous law.

It is not truly law without legislative action. Its like a court ruling that says the legislature must make an equal way for gays to marry. Until the legislature acts to create a law and iron out the details it is nothing.

There is little to argue the validity from. The document gives them the power to choose. Now, you could create a constitutional convention, you can amend the document, you can do many things, but just saying that there is no real power there is not a legal argument with any legs whatsoever.

There is plenty to argue. The intent of the founders expressed in writings, ratification debates, speeches, etc.

And going to vote for another dumbass partisan and hope he finally changes things has plenty of legs, huh? Look at the vast improvments it has made over fiery speech. Yeah Paine, MLK, etc should have been pragmatic like Damo then maybe they would have affected some change.

Now, you are being foolish. It is legislation, limited to the constitution like any other legislation. It even says that it supercedes previous law, in that same document.

Your previous argument did not imply it was limited in any way. As I have explained before, legislation deals with details beyond the scope of treaties. A court ruling directing a legislative action is "law" but it is not legislation. Your argument beyond foolsih, its moronic.

Legal arguments are not based on morality. I address why it is legal for them to do that. You address whether or not it is "right" for that to be legal. They are two separate arguments. My point is simply legality, yours is whether it is "right" to be legal. Whether it is "right" or not, the constitution is the current social contract.

Yes they are. Concepts of justice and proper laws are normative. Our constitution is based around the moral principles of rights.

No, I am arguing that if you really want change, there are two ways to go. But pretending that it isn't legal isn't one of them. Legality and "right" are two separate issues. If you don't think it is "right" for it to be legal then you must seek change. Change does not come from denying reality.

Of course, Damo I understand that fucking thugs do just about whatever they like and you will be there to apologize for them, say you got fooled and vote for their buddies next time. But, "legal right" and "legal authority" are not two seperate things. The legal authority behind federal laws is found in the constitution. When those laws violate the constitution they lack proper authority.

Your argument is that proper legal authority is found in the barrel of a gun. Unfortunately that is often reality, but it not right and only fascist would cheer it. You seem to support our consitution not because it is right but because you enjoy the exercise in government force

 

[Damocles]

It is not truly law without legislative action. Its like a court ruling that says the legislature must make an equal way for gays to marry. Until the legislature acts to create a law and iron out the details it is nothing.

The difference is the Constitution doesn't say a ruling of the court is legislation, it does say that a ratified Treaty is.

There is plenty to argue. The intent of the founders expressed in writings, ratification debates, speeches, etc.

And going to vote for another dumbass partisan and hope he finally changes things has plenty of legs, huh? Look at the vast improvments it has made over fiery speech. Yeah Paine, MLK, etc should have been pragmatic like Damo then maybe they would have affected some change.

The Founders said that the Treaty cannot supersede the Constitution. In this case I explained how it does not. What you want to argue has already been answered by the SCOTUS working within the framework of what the Founders created.

Your previous argument did not imply it was limited in any way. As I have explained before, legislation deals with details beyond the scope of treaties. A court ruling directing a legislative action is "law" but it is not legislation. Your argument beyond foolsih, its moronic.

It was a statement, limited in the fact that I used one line. My previous statement was of the legality.

Again with the court ruling. The main difference being, the Constitution directly states that a ratified Treaty IS law, it has no such statement of court rulings.

Yes they are. Concepts of justice and proper laws are normative. Our constitution is based around the moral principles of rights.

That makes no bones when speaking of legality, to change the law you must change the representatives not just shout at the wind.

Of course, Damo I understand that fucking thugs do just about whatever they like and you will be there to apologize for them, say you got fooled and vote for their buddies next time. But, "legal right" and "legal authority" are not two seperate things. The legal authority behind federal laws is found in the constitution. When those laws violate the constitution they lack proper authority.

Yes, that would be true. And the sole authority on deciding if they violate the constitution is what entity? I'll give you a hint. It's initials are SCOTUS... care to guess?

Your argument is that proper legal authority is found in the barrel of a gun. Unfortunately that is often reality, but it not right and only fascist would cheer it. You seem to support our consitution not because it is right but because you enjoy the exercise in government force

My argument is nothing of the sort. Government is empowered by the people, if you do not have them on your side, if you don't work within the framework of pragmatism, then you designate yourself to the fringe.

In other words. How the argument is presented is often as important as what it says, especially in politics. Without regard to human reaction to your argument you meet only resistance to what you present and find no traction for your ideas. Again, this is the problem with the Libertarian Party. While most of America identifies with many of the ideals of the Libertarian Party, they present themselves so poorly they relegate themselves to the sidelines of history, rather than making an impact they become angry spectators because they so poorly deal in actual impact of their actions.

While we agree on whether or not there SHOULD be a law against MJ machines anywhere, I will work towards what I believe by convincing people of the futile nature of the "Drug War" presenting the argument within the framework of human nature and a pragmatic view of the amount of power I have to sway opinion. While you just bluntly shout out how it is "unconstitutional" giving no consideration of how it will be received, giving no solution and presenting no real argument. Even refusing to listen to those who agree who would work within the framework of the social contract we abide by, they are "nationalists" or whatever frame you wish to sling around them...

 

[Scut Farkus]

The Framework Of Pragmatism. LMAO!

That's priceless and hilarious. Damo, your stalwart defense of the status quo is inspiring! not.

 

[Epicurus]

Ha... gotta give that one to AHZ.

If I settled for pragmatism, I wouldn't vote Libertarian so often.

 

[Damocles]

The Framework Of Pragmatism. LMAO!

That's priceless and hilarious. Damo, your stalwart defense of the status quo is inspiring! not.

You are blazing new territories of disingenuousness if you think it is a defense of the status quo. It is an urge to Libertarians to begin to use just a bit of PR rather than idiocy in their arguments. Recognizing human nature and reaction to how an argument is presented is not a defense of the status quo. As well as recognizing that the amount of power to create change is directly effected by how they are viewed by their contemporaries.

How is it that companies, some of the worst bureaucracies alive, can recognize a good presentation can make or break them, but Libertarians, who are supposedly good businessmen, cannot?

 

[Damocles]

Oh well. If recognizing that the Constitution gives Treaties the power of Law by directly stating that they are law is somehow a defense of the status quo then I guess I am guilty.

 

[Scut Farkus]

Class. It's the law, mmmkay, and like if it has backdoors, they're legal cuz that door IS built in, but not talked about. Let's face it. we all got tricked is all we can do is learn to settle on the pragmatic choice as dictated by the party apparatus. Truly inspiring.

The Narrative of Defeat.