Watch the video of the Democrats on Iraq

[Campy]

You're right.  We absolutely should only do what the UN says.  Can't wait for the next hollow argument.

505912[/snapback]

As I said in another post, the wisdom of the US' participation can be debated.

 

But in the meantime, I'm not in favor of abondoning the Constitution.

[Taro T]

Read the UN Charter and then the Constitution.  They're binding agreements.  For Americans, they become federal law (again, read the Constitution).

 

Uh, not to my knowledge.  Nor do I recall saying as much.

505922[/snapback]

UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 (November 10, 1975)

 

"THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

...

DETERMINES that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination."

 

Looks pretty cut and dried to me. If all UN resolutions are automatically US law, I guess that one is as well.

 

I don't believe that UN resolutions automatically become US law as parts of binding treaties because that would render ANY US laws subject to modification via UN resolutions. I don't see where today's Senate can be forced to ratify / abide by a UN resolution today because the US joined the UN over 50 years ago. Maybe you could provide some clarification on what you mean by this, because I am not following you one bit on this one.

[Campy]

UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 (November 10, 1975)

 

"THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

...

DETERMINES that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination."

 

Looks pretty cut and dried to me.  If all UN resolutions are automatically US law, I guess that one is as well.

 

I don't believe that UN resolutions automatically become US law as parts of binding treaties because that would render ANY US laws subject to modification via UN resolutions.  I don't see where today's Senate can be forced to ratify / abide by a UN resolution today because the US joined the UN over 50 years ago.  Maybe you could provide some clarification on what you mean by this, because I am not following you one bit on this one.

505950[/snapback]

Remember the part where I suggested you read the Constitution? *sighs*

 

From Article VI:

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

You don't have to like it. Hell, you don't even to believe it, but it's true.

[erynthered]

Remember the part where I suggested you read the Constitution? *sighs*

 

From Article VI:

You don't have to like it.  Hell, you don't even to believe it, but it's true.

505977[/snapback]

 

 

So if they told the United States we have to dis-arm, we'd have to? I dont think so Campy.

[Taro T]

Remember the part where I suggested you read the Constitution? *sighs*

 

From Article VI:

You don't have to like it.  Hell, you don't even to believe it, but it's true.

505977[/snapback]

Campy, I see your point, but disagree with you about UN resolutions being "treaties" that the US is bound to. Unless the Senate RATIFIES a treaty it is NOT the "law of the land". (The Kyoto treaty that Clinton signed being a prime example.) I don't understand how the US becoming a member nation more than half a century ago automatically forces the US to follow something that was added in the interim.

 

The US is party to GATT, but if/when that gets revised, it won't be binding on the US until the Senate ratifies the revisions. I don't see how this is any different.

 

PS Thanks for the snippy answer about reading the Constitution.

[Campy]

So if they told the United States we have to dis-arm, we'd have to? I dont think so Campy.

505978[/snapback]

Hey man, I didn't write it. Your beef isn't with me, it's with the authors.

 

To address your question, I'd hope we'd ammend Article VI about 5 minutes after being told that.

[Campy]

Campy, I see your point, but disagree with you about UN resolutions being "treaties" that the US is bound to.

The UN Charter is a treaty. In that treaty the members agreed to be bound by the UN's resolutions and decisions. It is what it is..

 

PS Thanks for the snippy answer about reading the Constitution.

506004[/snapback]

Snippy answer? What was it the "*sighs*" part? I posted three words to address your question on the legality of treaties being federal law. Those three words were, "read the Constitution."

 

And you failed to do so, putting the impetus on me to do your legwork. You thought my sigh was "snippy," did you?

 

Do yourself (and me) a favor: If you'd like to debate the contents of the Constitution with me, read the damn thing first.

[Taro T]

The UN Charter is a treaty.  In that treaty the members agreed to be bound by the UN's resolutions and decisions.  It is what it is..

 

Snippy answer?  What was it the "*sighs*" part?  I posted three words to address your question on the legality of treaties being federal law.  Those three words were, "read the Constitution."

 

And you failed to do so, putting the impetus on me to do your legwork.  You thought my sigh was "snippy," did you? 

 

Do yourself (and me) a favor: If you'd like to debate the contents of the Constitution with me, read the damn thing first.

506019[/snapback]

Please point out to me where in the UN Charter it says anything about member nations being bound by General Assembly resolutions. As near as I can tell, and I admit I may be missing something, the General Assembly makes RECOMMENDATIONS and reports. I saw nothing binding in any of it. The Security Council is a different matter, but we have a veto on that one, so I'm not too worried about anything biting our butt from there.

 

And you can go blank yourself with the "you didn't read the Constitution" crud. I have read the Constitution on several occasions and even bothered to relook at it before posting to you. My issue isn't with reading the bloody thing. My issue is that I don't see where any "resolutions" have been ratified by the Senate as PER THE CONSTITIUTION. I ASKED for CLARIFICATION of YOUR STATEMENTS and you suggested I go reread the Constitution, thus the point about being "snippy".

 

The Charter is a treaty, you are correct. However my point was that the Senate has to ratify any treaties and the way you have been describing things, it would imply that you think once a treaty has been signed any and all modifications are necessarily binding on the US. I do not come away with that impression. That definitely is not the case with "normal" treaties. IF the UN Charter IS a different beast, please point me to the direct reference as I DON'T SEE IT THERE.

[KRC]

Please point out to me where in the UN Charter it says anything about member nations being bound by General Assembly resolutions.  As near as I can tell, and I admit I may be missing something, the General Assembly makes RECOMMENDATIONS and reports.  I saw nothing binding in any of it.  The Security Council is a different matter, but we have a veto on that one, so I'm not too worried about anything biting our butt from there.

 

And you can go blank yourself with the "you didn't read the Constitution" crud.  I have read the Constitution on several occasions and even bothered to relook at it before posting to you.  My issue isn't with reading the bloody thing.  My issue is that I don't see where any "resolutions" have been ratified by the Senate as PER THE CONSTITIUTION.  I ASKED for CLARIFICATION of YOUR STATEMENTS and you suggested I go reread the Constitution, thus the point about being "snippy".

 

The Charter is a treaty, you are correct.  However my point was that the Senate has to ratify any treaties and the way you have been describing things, it would imply that you think once a treaty has been signed any and all modifications are necessarily binding on the US.  I do not come away with that impression.  That definitely is not the case with "normal" treaties.  IF the UN Charter IS a different beast, please point me to the direct reference as I DON'T SEE IT THERE.

506190[/snapback]

 

 

I think that his opinion is that the US is subservient to the UN, due to the fact that we are signatories to their charter.

 

My problem is the circular logic inherent in that: We must abide by our Constitution. Campy's argument is that our Constitution states that we abide by any treaties (ratified by Congress) and the UN Charter is a "treaty." If we must abide by the UN's whims, what happens when their whims contradict our Constitution? Which takes precedence? Do we now need to ratify a Constitutional amendment when their whims contradict our Constitution? Take for example gun ownership. If the UN were to decide that gun ownership is illegal, our Second Amendment becomes null and void. Now what?

[Campy]

Please point out to me where in the UN Charter it says anything about member nations being bound by General Assembly resolutions. <snip>

 

<snip> all modifications are necessarily binding on the US.  I do not come away with that impression.  That definitely is not the case with "normal" treaties.  IF the UN Charter IS a different beast, please point me to the direct reference as I DON'T SEE IT THERE.

506190[/snapback]

Chapter 1, Article 2:

 

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

 

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

 

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

 

BTW: Did you start to get a little nervous after the Caps started chipping away at the huge lead last night? I know I was.

[Taro T]

Chapter 1, Article 2:

BTW: Did you start to get a little nervous after the Caps started chipping away at the huge lead last night?  I know I was.

506351[/snapback]

Thank you for the clarification of your post. I now see why you feel all the UN resolutions / actions are binding on US law. I do not interpret Article 2 as broadly as you do, but will admit I may be misinterpreting it. (I doubt it, but it definitely is possible.)

 

As for the Sabres, for some reason the game wasn't on DirecTV CI in Rochester last night so I didn't get a chance to watch it. I only knew they were winning big and then knew that they had won. Fortunately didn't get any of the gory details.

[Alaska Darin]

As for the Sabres, for some reason the game wasn't on DirecTV CI in Rochester last night so I didn't get a chance to watch it.  I only knew they were winning big and then knew that they had won.  Fortunately didn't get any of the gory details.

506427[/snapback]

They took the last 10 minutes of the second period off and didn't do much in the third until Pyatt iced the game. The most annoying thing about the game was listening to the incredibly pathetic Crapitals boredcast (sic) team. I've done better shows at the AA level. Hard to believe that's who they choose to use as a face for their organization.

[Campy]

They took the last 10 minutes of the second period off and didn't do much in the third until Pyatt iced the game.  The most annoying thing about the game was listening to the incredibly pathetic Crapitals boredcast (sic) team.  I've done better shows at the AA level.  Hard to believe that's who they choose to use as a face for their organization.

506433[/snapback]

Joe Benenotti (sp?) and Craig "Locker" Laughlin. They really are terrible. If they were in Tampa or Nashville, or someplace like that, I'd understand. But I'd think that DC and/or the Caps could attract some kind of broadcasting talent - because they sure don't have any right now.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Chapter 1, Article 2:

 

Does anyone follow that paragraph? Not a "Nobody else does so why should we?" observation; more of a "Holy sh--, what a spineless, !@#$ed-up organization!" observation.

 

BTW: Did you start to get a little nervous after the Caps started chipping away at the huge lead last night?  I know I was.

506351[/snapback]

 

Why on earth would anyone worry about the Caps?

[Campy]

Why on earth would anyone worry about the Caps? 

506480[/snapback]

We don't, unless they play the Sabres, which is what they did last night. Bflo held on to win, Pyatt got goals number 1 and 2 on the season, and my namesake, Campbell, put two in as well - in case you're interested.

[Alaska Darin]

We don't, unless they play the Sabres, which is what they did last night.  Bflo held on to win, Pyatt got goals number 1 and 2 on the season, and my namesake, Campbell, put two in as well - in case you're interested.

506696[/snapback]

That would be goals one, two, and three.

[Campy]

If the UN were to decide that gun ownership is illegal, our Second Amendment becomes null and void. Now what?

506339[/snapback]

Sorry I missed that this morning. The UN Charter prohibits them from interfering in the domestic issues of nations, but your point is taken.

 

That, IMO, is the scary part about the US Constitution's Article VI, and the even scarier part about the UN. I'd imagine that we're now discussing something that think-tanks and Constitutional lawyers probable haggle about every day.

 

I don't know the solution, short of leaving the UN or Ammending Article VI. I do know that if I'm told to choose between one of those two that we'd be telling the UN that we sure would miss 'em.

 

FWIW: I think Article VI is worded in the manner that it is to prevent, or perhaps discourage is a better word, the US from entering into those "foreign entaglements" in the first place.

[Campy]

That would be goals one, two, and three.

506813[/snapback]

I missed the 3rd one. Getting the hat is one helluva way to dump a slump.

[KRC]

Sorry I missed that this morning.  The UN Charter prohibits them from interfering in the domestic issues of nations, but your point is taken.

 

That, IMO, is the scary part about the US Constitution's Article VI, and the even scarier part about the UN.  I'd imagine that we're now discussing something that think-tanks and Constitutional lawyers probable haggle about every day.

 

I don't know the solution, short of leaving the UN or Ammending Article VI.  I do know that if I'm told to choose between one of those two that we'd be telling the UN that we sure would miss 'em.

 

FWIW: I think Article VI is worded in the manner that it is to prevent, or perhaps discourage is a better word, the US from entering into those "foreign entaglements" in the first place.

506827[/snapback]

 

 

I think that it gets back to what dave_b stated earlier: Does the U.S. Congress need to ratify any changes to existing treaties? If so, then wouldn't they need to ratify each resolution passed by the UN since it is a modification to the "treaty" originally ratified by Congress?

 

Also, how are you going to distinguish between domestic and international issues? Take the gun example I proposed. You originally stated that it is a domestic issue. The UN would make a case that US guns are being used in other countries, thereby making it an international issue. We use foreign guns here (hell, I own several). If Chinese guns were banned from private ownership by the UN, do I have to give up my MAK-9?

[Ghost of BiB]

I think that it gets back to what dave_b stated earlier: Does the U.S. Congress need to ratify any changes to existing treaties? If so, then wouldn't they need to ratify each resolution passed by the UN since it is a modification to the "treaty" originally ratified by Congress?

 

Also, how are you going to distinguish between domestic and international issues? Take the gun example I proposed. You originally stated that it is a domestic issue. The UN would make a case that US guns are being used in other countries, thereby making it an international issue. We use foreign guns here (hell, I own several). If Chinese guns were banned from private ownership by the UN, do I have to give up my MAK-9?

506849[/snapback]

 

Yes. You would have to Fed Ex it to me labled "Priority Machine Parts".