(11-13-2012 04:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  oh the slipper slope argument? good thing that's a valid argument.

I think it's more unfortunate that slippery slopes are real, but they are (not every slope is slippery, of course). If you don't think they are you will have a hard time explaining the history of our consitutional jurisprudence.

(11-13-2012 04:57 PM)jh Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 04:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  oh the slipper slope argument? good thing that's a valid argument.

I think it's more unfortunate that slippery slopes are real, but they are (not every slope is slippery, of course). If you don't think they are you will have a hard time explaining the history of our consitutional jurisprudence.

But, just because it has happened is no indication that it will happen, which is the flaw in the slippery slope argument.

In short, this entire thread is stupid because 67 members of the Senate need to approve this (won't happen) and even then, the SCOTUS would have to approve a treaty which overpowers our constitution (wouldn't happen).

(11-13-2012 05:05 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 04:57 PM)jh Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 04:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  oh the slipper slope argument? good thing that's a valid argument.

I think it's more unfortunate that slippery slopes are real, but they are (not every slope is slippery, of course). If you don't think they are you will have a hard time explaining the history of our consitutional jurisprudence.

But, just because it has happened is no indication that it will happen, which is the flaw in the slippery slope argument.
In short, this entire thread is stupid because 67 members of the Senate need to approve this (won't happen) and even then, the SCOTUS would have to approve a treaty which overpowers our constitution (wouldn't happen).

Just because the slippery slope is not compelled by logic does not make them any less real. The real world doesn't follow the rules of formal logic. It's messy. You guard against probabilities, not certainties. You devine someone's next move from their previous one. You don't wait until they have clearly crossed the line to start pushing back. By then it is often too late.

Spiro's hope is not that a treaty overpowers the Constitution but that it slowly subordinates the Constitution to international norms. It's already slowly starting to happen, though this was not a major part of the justification.

Quote:International law is becoming part of the vocabulary of American constitutional law. Although its doctrinal place remains unsettled, international law appears poised to make unprecedented inroads in the making of American constitutional law. . . .

Blocking the execution of mentally retarded offenders, the majority in the 2002 decision in Atkins v. Virginia adverted to the “overwhelming[] disapprov[al]” of such executions “within the world community.”

Are you really so certain that 67 members of the senate wouldn't approve an arms control treaty which contained a requirement that all the firearms in America be registered? To the extent that I am it's because of opposition which would be based largely on slippery slope grounds. If the people (and the NRA) stayed silent I would not be at all surprised to see such a treaty ratified.

Where has it happened?

(11-13-2012 05:33 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Where has it happened?

What? Slippery slopes or the treaties superceeding the Constitution? There are plenty of examples of the former - just pay attention to the dissents in supreme court decisions and how often what they warn about comes to pass or the expansion of the interstate commerce clause and the elimination of the freedom of contract.* I doubt there are any of the latter yet. The goal is to keep it that way.

ETA * Every time the supreme court asks what the limiting principle is, which is often, they are concerned about slippery slopes. If they take it seriously, and they are the deciders, it is certainly not foolish for anyone else to take it seriously as well.