Interesting justification made someone on the xkcd forums. The Constitution states that treaties are as binding as the Constitution itself (they're count among the things that are the "supreme law of the land"). The US signed a treaty that made it part of the the UN Security Council . . .
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
My point was more about how Canada backed out of Iraq by deferring to the UN. Sort of like, "well, what they say goes, the UN is clearly the best moral authority on the planet".
Thats a really weird point though. Given it is the constitution says Congress needs to vote on war, it would be interesting to see someone break down which takes precedence?
Like, that seems like a glaring weakness (albeit one the founding fathers probably couldn't foresee) in the constitution, if its provisions can be violated simply because of international treaties. Like, could the US join an international treaty that restricted freedom of expression and justify it under the constitutional provision that treaties need to be followed?
Sounds like fertile territory for a dystopic near-future SciFi novel.
__________________
"End when I find myn Hertland, efter Irfet end Woo,
In Dale af Paper, worin Ink Nymphen dans’n,
I’ll endly have somthing stour ta gib ta myn Fremdin.
O Vers’ af de Musen, dwan’t ferlet me noo!"
That's an argument that Ron Paul made for why the Iraq war was illegal.
No because there are certain "inalienable" rights that, regardless of what occurs, cannot be violated. We could have a conditional treaty...which all treaties are, anyway. They could not be treaties unless they were conditional: else it’s just two countries saying, “You want a treaty?”
Do you have a car, do you buy plastic things? then your country needs the oil even if they have to invade, bomb other countries for it. If not the US and others will become 3rd world countries.
You can´t, there´s a lot of froggies in Canada and the French would help them out, soo watch your step USA
Produced by modern slave labour, why do you think all the jobs are going in the west?
I agree with that sentiment. A country's primary resonsiblity should be to its own people, first and foremost.
The justification for "world policing" is: it provides better prosperity in the long run for the American people. I don't buy that for the most part. Sure, you need to have trade-relations, good foreign relations, and a strong diplomacy arm, but you do not need a world police-arm...for the most part.
He does but I do not see that as a contradication: he supports the constitutionality "binding" treaties but wants to end some of the treaties...most likely to get out of those obligations, lol. In the case of the Iraq invasion, we violated our constitution by defying the wishes of a super important treaty we made in being part of the UN: we did not have their approval to go to war making our war unconstitutional. However, we voted on it and I believe that that vote would over-ride the unconstitutionality of our agreement with the UN. What is the UN going to do? They did nothing. We didn't even get "sanctioned" by other nations...France whined or something like that.
And, yeah, he doesn't like war because he sees it as a waste of money almost every single time.
KMC Community Forums
Mar 20th, 2011 12:32 AM
