America blocks yet another UN treaty

[Az]

Kropotkin , I meant my page 3 post.

[Kropotkin]

it's aimed at strangelove and it's about UN documents etc, I don't see any point in making any replies at all.

[Ecthy]

And I don't see any point in discussing on whether a post is worthy to be replied to or not...

This is getting truly pathetic, guys... Kropotkin, if you post in this thread, stick to the topic.. and Dal, if others don't want to talk with you, they just don't want to!

[Az]

[Ecthy]

you should really brush your teeth before grinning that bluntly

[Anodyne]

The U.S. delegation had pushed the Bush administration's agenda against abortion and in favor of sexual abstinence before marriage and of the traditional family

Just how naive can a modern country like the U.S. be!!!?!?!? This is ridicilous!! sexual abstinence before marriage!!

Now.. after recovering from my first laughter and thinking about this matter... it is actually pretty scary

[TCO]

Maybe you can find something to really be scared about, you effete little Eurocom...

[Boris Godunov]

Ecth: Arnie speaks American with a preposterously phony Austrian accent.

OT: Why are so many people upset over a treaty that was readily signed by nations like Sudan, Chad, Libya, etc.? Do you think these nations are somehow suddenly overcome with concern for children?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GP
Guess how man 17 year olds died. approx percentage...

GP, you've already posted the stats for 17 year-old conscipts dying in action. This "shmarty" pays attention...

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


GP, you've already posted the stats for 17 year-old conscipts dying in action. This "shmarty" pays attention...

good, shmarty!

This old troll only has so many tricks in the bag...

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


Doesn't international law supercede domestic law? It does here.

No, international law doesn't supercede domestic law in the U.S. International law never will supercede domestic law in the U.S. in any great way unless something drastic happens in the international situation. The logic behind the arguments for signing the bill doesn't amount to much. Why should we sign something just because others have signed it? Follows along the same line of thinking as the old cliche "if everyone jumped off of a bridge, would you?" If we don't agree to everything in the treaty, then why should we sign it? Besides, how well will Iraq and Pakistan follow the provisions of the treaty? The U.S. will undoubtably fufill most provisions of the treaty better than the vast majority of the signatories. To me this action does two things: it emphasizes the impotence of the U.N. and it provides Europeans and wannabe Euros another oppurtunity to ***** about the U.S. Go ahead and *****. No one cares.

[KrazyHorse]

No, international law doesn't supercede domestic law in the U.S

According to the resident legal experts, treaties supercede all domestic laws except the Constitution.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

No, international law doesn't supercede domestic law in the U.S

According to the resident legal experts, treaties supercede all domestic laws except the Constitution.

The Constitution is the ultimate in domestic law.

[KrazyHorse]

Your point being?

[nationalist]

My point is that as long as international law is superceeded by the Constitution, international law will never play a dominating role in U.S. domestic policy. We always have the option of amending the Constitution to avoid following any international law. Granted, this would only happen in a drastic situation. However, the knowledge that that option is avaliable takes away much of the strength of international legislation in the U.S. The bottom line is that the U.S. is not going to accept any law that doesn't benefit it. At most the U.S. will accept a law that prvides no benefit, but avoids hindering U.S. activities.