(11-13-2012 08:22 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Could you enumerate any of the supposed powers that the UN has on US soil?

Probably about the same as the EU had on German soil in 1960.

Nobody is supposing that the UN has powers today; that totally misses the point. This is about not wishing to give them powers in the future.

(11-13-2012 08:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 08:22 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Could you enumerate any of the supposed powers that the UN has on US soil?

Probably about the same as the EU had on German soil in 1960.

Nobody is supposing that the UN has powers today; that totally misses the point. This is about not wishing to give them powers in the future.

Who exactly has proposed giving the UN any powers over US citizens or US policy? Well, let me rephrase that. Who in the US government (Congress or Cabinet level or higher in Executive branch)?

(11-13-2012 11:24 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 08:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 08:22 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Could you enumerate any of the supposed powers that the UN has on US soil?

Probably about the same as the EU had on German soil in 1960.
Nobody is supposing that the UN has powers today; that totally misses the point. This is about not wishing to give them powers in the future.

Who exactly has proposed giving the UN any powers over US citizens or US policy? Well, let me rephrase that. Who in the US government (Congress or Cabinet level or higher in Executive branch)?

That's the issue. The proposed treaties would. They won't, because they won't get ratified by this senate (every republican will vote "no" as will about 20 democrats, so they won't sniff the required 67 votes). But they would if they did.

(11-13-2012 11:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 11:24 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 08:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 08:22 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Could you enumerate any of the supposed powers that the UN has on US soil?

Probably about the same as the EU had on German soil in 1960.
Nobody is supposing that the UN has powers today; that totally misses the point. This is about not wishing to give them powers in the future.

Who exactly has proposed giving the UN any powers over US citizens or US policy? Well, let me rephrase that. Who in the US government (Congress or Cabinet level or higher in Executive branch)?

That's the issue. The proposed treaties would. They won't, because they won't get ratified by this senate (every republican will vote "no" as will about 20 democrats, so they won't sniff the required 67 votes). But they would if they did.

Ok, some nutjob in the UN proposes a treaty, so what. I asked who in the US government is in favor of these? They won't even get to the senate to vote on if the President doesn't sign it in the first place

(11-13-2012 11:24 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 08:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 08:22 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Could you enumerate any of the supposed powers that the UN has on US soil?

Probably about the same as the EU had on German soil in 1960.

Nobody is supposing that the UN has powers today; that totally misses the point. This is about not wishing to give them powers in the future.

Who exactly has proposed giving the UN any powers over US citizens or US policy? Well, let me rephrase that. Who in the US government (Congress or Cabinet level or higher in Executive branch)?

Then speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi on the house floor:

Quote:H.C.Res. 353: A bill to expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should assume a strong leadership role in implementing the decisions made at the Earth Summit by developing a national strategy to implement Agenda Twenty-One and other Earth Summit agreements through domestic policy and foreign policy, by cooperating with all countries to identify and initiate further agreements to protect the global environment, and by supporting and participating in a high-level United Nations Sustainable Development Commission. [Emphasis added]

(11-13-2012 11:29 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 11:24 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 08:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 08:22 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Could you enumerate any of the supposed powers that the UN has on US soil?

Probably about the same as the EU had on German soil in 1960.

Nobody is supposing that the UN has powers today; that totally misses the point. This is about not wishing to give them powers in the future.

Who exactly has proposed giving the UN any powers over US citizens or US policy? Well, let me rephrase that. Who in the US government (Congress or Cabinet level or higher in Executive branch)?

Then speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi on the house floor:

Quote:H.C.Res. 353: A bill to expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should assume a strong leadership role in implementing the decisions made at the Earth Summit by developing a national strategy to implement Agenda Twenty-One and other Earth Summit agreements through domestic policy and foreign policy, by cooperating with all countries to identify and initiate further agreements to protect the global environment, and by supporting and participating in a high-level United Nations Sustainable Development Commission. [Emphasis added]

Ok, so implementing sustainability policies is somehow agreeing to a treaty? I don't see anywhere in there where she says ratify Treaty XYZ. House doesn't vote on treaties, anyway, so I fail to see what the issue is. And now that I have gone and looked it up, Agenda 21 isn't even a treaty. It's a non-binding development agreement. Conspiracy theorists find the most insane stuff to go crazy about

The worst job in America will be the guy coming to take peoples guns

(11-13-2012 11:34 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 11:29 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 11:24 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 08:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 08:22 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Could you enumerate any of the supposed powers that the UN has on US soil?

Probably about the same as the EU had on German soil in 1960.
Nobody is supposing that the UN has powers today; that totally misses the point. This is about not wishing to give them powers in the future.

Who exactly has proposed giving the UN any powers over US citizens or US policy? Well, let me rephrase that. Who in the US government (Congress or Cabinet level or higher in Executive branch)?

Then speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi on the house floor:

Quote:H.C.Res. 353: A bill to expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should assume a strong leadership role in implementing the decisions made at the Earth Summit by developing a national strategy to implement Agenda Twenty-One and other Earth Summit agreements through domestic policy and foreign policy, by cooperating with all countries to identify and initiate further agreements to protect the global environment, and by supporting and participating in a high-level United Nations Sustainable Development Commission. [Emphasis added]

Ok, so implementing sustainability policies is somehow agreeing to a treaty? I don't see anywhere in there where she says ratify Treaty XYZ. House doesn't vote on treaties, anyway, so I fail to see what the issue is. And now that I have gone and looked it up, Agenda 21 isn't even a treaty. It's a non-binding development agreement. Conspiracy theorists find the most insane stuff to go crazy about

You are parsing words and splitting hairs very carefully here. And totally ignoring the elephant in the room. Do you honestly and truly see no way that any harm could come of this?

(11-13-2012 11:46 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  The worst job in America will be the guy coming to take peoples guns

At least it'll be full time, unlike most of the jobs added under Obama.

(11-13-2012 11:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 11:34 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 11:29 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 11:24 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 08:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Probably about the same as the EU had on German soil in 1960.
Nobody is supposing that the UN has powers today; that totally misses the point. This is about not wishing to give them powers in the future.

Who exactly has proposed giving the UN any powers over US citizens or US policy? Well, let me rephrase that. Who in the US government (Congress or Cabinet level or higher in Executive branch)?

Then speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi on the house floor:

Quote:H.C.Res. 353: A bill to expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should assume a strong leadership role in implementing the decisions made at the Earth Summit by developing a national strategy to implement Agenda Twenty-One and other Earth Summit agreements through domestic policy and foreign policy, by cooperating with all countries to identify and initiate further agreements to protect the global environment, and by supporting and participating in a high-level United Nations Sustainable Development Commission. [Emphasis added]

Ok, so implementing sustainability policies is somehow agreeing to a treaty? I don't see anywhere in there where she says ratify Treaty XYZ. House doesn't vote on treaties, anyway, so I fail to see what the issue is. And now that I have gone and looked it up, Agenda 21 isn't even a treaty. It's a non-binding development agreement. Conspiracy theorists find the most insane stuff to go crazy about

You are parsing words and splitting hairs very carefully here. And totally ignoring the elephant in the room. Do you honestly and truly see no way that any harm could come of this?

I can see regulations and zoning rules coming out of this that you may not like, but I don't see the UN somehow magically gaining sovereignty over the US because we signed a non-binding development agreement that has zero enforceability.

(11-13-2012 11:57 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 11:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 11:34 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 11:29 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 11:24 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Who exactly has proposed giving the UN any powers over US citizens or US policy? Well, let me rephrase that. Who in the US government (Congress or Cabinet level or higher in Executive branch)?

Then speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi on the house floor:

Quote:H.C.Res. 353: A bill to expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should assume a strong leadership role in implementing the decisions made at the Earth Summit by developing a national strategy to implement Agenda Twenty-One and other Earth Summit agreements through domestic policy and foreign policy, by cooperating with all countries to identify and initiate further agreements to protect the global environment, and by supporting and participating in a high-level United Nations Sustainable Development Commission. [Emphasis added]

Ok, so implementing sustainability policies is somehow agreeing to a treaty? I don't see anywhere in there where she says ratify Treaty XYZ. House doesn't vote on treaties, anyway, so I fail to see what the issue is. And now that I have gone and looked it up, Agenda 21 isn't even a treaty. It's a non-binding development agreement. Conspiracy theorists find the most insane stuff to go crazy about

You are parsing words and splitting hairs very carefully here. And totally ignoring the elephant in the room. Do you honestly and truly see no way that any harm could come of this?

I can see regulations and zoning rules coming out of this that you may not like, but I don't see the UN somehow magically gaining sovereignty over the US because we signed a non-binding development agreement that has zero enforceability.

Do you honestly and truly believe that no harm could come from this?

You are parsing words very carefully to duck that specific question. I'm guessing we both know why.

There are respectable voices calling for the use of treaties to trump the Constitution. I'm not saying that anyone important in the federal government is, or that the current court would allow it, but the pressure is there. And even a little pressure, if not resisted, can have a big effect.

http://www.volokh.com/2012/09/13/prof-pe...t-be-done/

Quote:But, Prof. Spiro argues, this supremacy of the Bill of Rights really isn’t that strong: The President and the Senate can, in the long run, “insinuat[e] international law” that would create “a partial displacement of constitutional hegemony” (for instance, with “an international norm against hate speech ... supply[ing] a basis for prohibiting it, the First Amendment notwithstanding”). “In the short term,” international norms would and should be “relevan[t] ... in domestic constitutional interpretation.” But “In the long run, it may point to the Constitution’s more complete subordination.”

Prof. Spiro is both defending the notion that treaties should be able to trump constitutional rights — “If some constitutional norms are more appropriately set at the international level” (and he believes they are), “that should justify a treaty power that, in some cases, overcomes even the Bill of Rights” — and predicting that treaties will over time do so.

No treaty can usurp the Constitution. As a matter of law, treaties aren't even enforceable--they have "enabling legislation" passed which makes their provisions law in the US. How can a law be supreme to the Constitution?

Yeah, where the hell is this whole 'Treaty usurping the constitution' thing coming from?

(11-13-2012 02:33 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yeah, where the hell is this whole 'Treaty usurping the constitution' thing coming from?

Faux News.

(11-13-2012 02:33 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yeah, where the hell is this whole 'Treaty usurping the constitution' thing coming from?

“In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract—when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract, before it can become a rule for the Court.” -- Chief Justice Marshall

That says it's to be treated like a piece of federal legislation, and like legislation, it must be executed before the court can question it's constitutionality. So, again, where the hell is it coming from that it supercedes the constitution?

I'm pretty sure that establishes that the Constitution is superior to treaties.

(11-13-2012 02:32 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  No treaty can usurp the Constitution. As a matter of law, treaties aren't even enforceable--they have "enabling legislation" passed which makes their provisions law in the US. How can a law be supreme to the Constitution?

The same way growing pot in your backyard for your personal consumption becomes regulable under the interstate commerce clause. Make enough small changes, shade enough meanings, and soon the original isn't recognizable anymore.

Start by accepting an international arms control agreement designed to control the illegal arms trade but which contains a requirement that all firearms in America be registered (from a quick look I think this is included in the UN's latest proposal). This might be necessary and proper for congress to carry out its powers, especially when the treaty power is combined with the international commerce clause - is the Second Amendment enough to stop it? If not, you've slipped a little bit down the slope. Ratify a couple of additional treaties which only incidentally burden the right to bear arms and you slip further down the slope each time - if it was ok to require registration why wouldn't these be ok too? Before long it doesn't make any sense to pretend that you are still at the top of the hill.

Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. If the supreme court wanted to it could decide right now that the meaning of the First Amendment is governed by international norms. All it has to say is that the things protected by the First Amendment are only those things recognized by international norms. It wouldn't, and likely won't anytime in the nearish future. But there are people, influential people (Spiro was the 14th most cited international law professor), who want it to be. If the legal academy converges on the idea (and I am not arguing that it has) it will be increasingly difficult for the court to resist the pressure.

oh the slipper slope argument? good thing that's a valid argument.