The UN and Sovereignty

[Damocles]

So, why don't we start off by reclarifying our positions.

1. I believe that ratified Treaties are law. (Subject to the Constitution).

2. If those machines do indeed violate the Treaty they do not have the authority to override it locally because the constitution says that they do not.

3. The SCOTUS ruled recently that Drugs are "Interstate Commerce" and therefore such would and could be regulated by Federal Law.

4. We both think this is a poor ruling, but thinking that doesn't change the reality of the ruling. (yes, reality again). Just like Dredd Scott, poor rulings happen but they certainly have the force of law.

5. (here is where reality rears its ugly head) The ruling is unlikely to change with the current court as they were the ones that made the ruling. Therefore the "can be overturned" argument is worthless until the face of the court changes.

So far, this is a basic reiteration. If you need clarification ask questions, I'll provide them. Or we can throw more insults around and gain natural allies using your method of insult and object. It seems to really work for you.

 

[Timshel]

Blah blah blah twist and spin...

They do not. Again, at that point in the conversation, taken as a whole I was simply stating that Treaty is law, not that it supersedes the constitution. When I saw that was where you were going with it I agreed so we could get past that idiocy.

Look, I will just chalk it up to you being lazy in your reading if you like, but you are not just being disingenuous.

Man you are disingenuous. Which court rules on constutionality? Is it you? I say work within reality, you pretend that just saying this fixes the problem.

No, the fuck I don't dickhead. You pretend that I pretend that. I am simply expressing my opinion on the consitutionality.

Strawman. I never said you had no right to "challenge the constitutionality".

Pretty much, yes you do. You argue that anyone that challenges the ruling should be written off as ignoring reality, when I have repeated myself a fucking 100 times here that I fully understand that only the Supremes opinion carrries the force of law.

I said, look at reality. It was this court that made the rulings I cited, they aren't going to overrule themselves. You either work with the clay you have or you pretend you have more of it. The pretend sculpture isn't as satisfying to the rest of the world.

Take your fucking strawman and shove it up your ass. I have no fucking clue how many times I am supposed to repeat that I fully understand the reality, much better than you do. You think your tactics of sucking repub dick will get you somewhere. It won't. You are clearly delusional.

And no, I am not going to work with some arrogant retard that throws a fit when I express my opinion and genuflects to the state as the only ones worthy of commenting on the constitution.

 

[Damocles]

Look, I will just chalk it up to you being lazy in your reading if you like, but you are not just being disingenuous.



No, the fuck I don't dickhead. You pretend that I pretend that. I am simply expressing my opinion on the consitutionality.



Pretty much, yes you do. You argue that anyone that challenges the ruling should be written off as ignoring reality, when I have repeated myself a fucking 100 times here that I fully understand that only the Supremes opinion carrries the force of law.



Take your fucking strawman and shove it up your ass. I have no fucking clue how many times I am supposed to repeat that I fully understand the reality, much better than you do. You think your tactics of sucking repub dick will get you somewhere. It won't. You are clearly delusional.

And no, I am not going to work with some arrogant retard that throws a fit when I express my opinion and genuflects to the state as the only ones worthy of commenting on the constitution.

Strawman. Serious one. Weak, and as I said, you can do better. I really expect you to.

I am sorry that the reality isn't meshing with your worldview today, so much that it ends with insults and derogatory remarks based on a sad strawman tactic.

I never said "don't bring it up". I said, "don't JUST bring it up and expect that it makes it all better". Each time I stated what must happen to change it you just insulted me with idiocy about "nationalist". You raped your own argument with strawmen and emotive reasoning with no logos.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I liked the restating Damo did.

So the constitution says treaties do NOT trump national law, but the supremes have set a precedent that they DO, which is, we all agree, disturbing.

 

[Damocles]

I liked the restating Damo did.

So the constitution says treaties do NOT trump national law, but the supremes have set a precedent that they DO, which is, we all agree, disturbing.

The SCOTUS set a precedent about Drug Laws, not that the Treaties supersede the constitution. Keep up.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

The SCOTUS set a precedent about Drug Laws, not that the Treaties supersede the constitution. Keep up.

Was it a drug law from a treaty?

 

[Damocles]

Was it a drug law from a treaty?

No. The SCOTUS ruled that Drugs are "Interstate Commerce" on a totally different case. However, it allows the FEDS to continue enforcing Federal Drug laws over State laws that allow them. If in a Treaty the US agreed to hold to certain standards of Drug Enforcement, then that standard would be law (per the constitution) and it would not violate the constitution per that previous ruling.

Caught up now?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

How did the federal governments right to regulate drugs get mixed up with the treaty discussion?

 

[Damocles]

How did the federal governments right to regulate drugs get mixed up with the treaty discussion?

It's what started it all. The thread is about the MJ machines in Los Angeles.

 

[Timshel]

I am sorry you are a liar that feels the need to distort others views when you have been shown wrong. That is, you were arguing that treaty power superceded the constitution, it's clear by the quotes I providied and once you realized your error you backtracked and started with ad homs and strawmen to distort my comments as being somehow outside of reality. You still do it now. I repeated over and over throughout that I fully understand that my opinion does not carry the weight of law as the supremes do.

 

[Damocles]

I am sorry you are a liar that feels the need to distort others views when you have been shown wrong. That is, you were arguing that treaty power superceded the constitution, it's clear by the quotes I providied and once you realized your error you backtracked and started with ad homs and strawmen to distort my comments as being somehow outside of reality. You still do it now. I repeated over and over throughout that I fully understand that my opinion does not carry the weight of law as the supremes do.

I was never arguing that. Again, I can see how you could have gotten that idea. It was never what I meant to argue or ever have believed. For proof of that you can find threads on here where I have argued the opposite.

Now again.

Can we start over, after restating positions and hold a conversation?

I have reiterated my position on the main issues above. Let's start from there.

Tell me again how it is going to change without first changing the SCOTUS.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

No. The SCOTUS ruled that Drugs are "Interstate Commerce" on a totally different case. However, it allows the FEDS to continue enforcing Federal Drug laws over State laws that allow them. If in a Treaty the US agreed to hold to certain standards of Drug Enforcement, then that standard would be law (per the constitution) and it would not violate the constitution per that previous ruling.

Caught up now?

but you also said this earlier:
"If those machines do indeed violate the Treaty they do not have the authority to override it locally because the constitution says that they do not."

How does the feds ability to regulate drugs under "interstate commerce" allow unconstitutional law in through treaty if the constitution says treaty can't do that?

DId I stumble upon the point? I doubt it.

 

[Damocles]

but you also said this earlier:
"If those machines do indeed violate the Treaty they do not have the authority to override it locally because the constitution says that they do not."

How does the feds ability to regulate drugs under "interstate commerce" allow unconstitutional law in through treaty if the constitution says treaty can't do that?

DId I stumble upon the point? I doubt it.

If the machines violate the treaty, Los Angeles does not have the authority to override the constitution, therefore the Treaty law would apply.

Keep up. At least use the context of the previous remark to better understand what the conversation is about.

 

[Damocles]

All of this is based on an "if" as well. I do not know that the US has agreed to any such standards in any treaty.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

If the machines violate the treaty, Los Angeles does not have the authority to override the constitution, therefore the Treaty law would apply.

Keep up. At least use the context of the previous remark to better understand what the conversation is about.

ZOMG?!

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

If the machines violate the treaty, Los Angeles does not have the authority to override the constitution.

Which means the machines can stay? Or that they have to go?

Keep up. At least use the context of the previous remark to better understand what the conversation is about.

What's up with the 'tude the last couple days? On yer monthly?

 

[Damocles]

Which means the machines can stay? Or that they have to go?


What's up with the 'tude the last couple days? On yer monthly?

The Feds would have to remove them per the "Law of the Land" ratified by the Senate, in such a case. Los Angeles could not have machines that violate such a law, the Feds have enforcement power as the constitution states that such laws supersede the State and Local laws that would violate the ratified Treaty.

The 'tude, is simply a mirror. Sometimes I like giving a little back.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

The Feds would have to remove them per the "Law of the Land" ratified by the Senate, in such a case. Los Angeles could not have machines that violate such a law, the Feds have enforcement power as the constitution states that such laws supersede the State and Local laws that would violate the ratified Treaty.

So the treaty becomes law. Thanks. A lot of us don't like that avenue of legislation. It's like, disenfranchisement and stuff. THough yes, constitutional. Certain aspects of the constitution may suck. That could be the case. Luckily we have the processes in place to amend this undesirable loophole.

 

[Damocles]

So the treaty becomes law. Thanks. A lot of us don't like that avenue of legislation. It's like, disenfranchisement and stuff. THough yes, constitutional. Certain aspects of the constitution may suck. That could be the case. Luckily we have the processes in place to amend this undesirable loophole.

It does, so long as it doesn't violate other provisions of the constitution. And yes, it is lucky we have provisions to change such things and sometimes the constitution is not perfect.

 

[Timshel]

It's what started it all. The thread is about the MJ machines in Los Angeles.

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 (as well as executive) 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 or some sort regulatry ruling. 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.