Has Bush Gone Mad?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ozz
You made an international agreement then spout a lot of lawyer doublespeak to renige. Your the only one who
cares about the US constitution

Worthless? Right?

Care to rephrase?

[Sprayber]

Am I the only one that has trouble figureing out where Ozz is comming from half the time?

[chequita guevara]

No. I honestly don't know what he said.

[Berzerker]

Hersh -

Well it's not really worth a rebuttal. I'm not going into a monism/pluralism debate now.

Ah yes, those without rebuttals claim rebuttals are not needed.

And congress has the power to make laws - treaties can limit the exercise that power. That's at the heart of international treaties, as adopted by Art VI. Same with declaring war, international treaties can limit the exercise of that power without being in conflict with the constitution. Under your interpretation, there would be hardly any treaty left that could be made.

Right, Congress declares war and the President with the duty to carry out the congressional declaration of war tells Congress he cannot fulfill his duties because the UN has to tell him it's okay first. A treaty cannot limit Congress' power to declare war without granting some foreign entity a veto of that power, a veto power the Framers did not even give the President. Your argument is that Congress no longer has the power to declare war because a treaty shifted that power to a foreign body. You seem to think no treaty can violate the Constitution, what about a treaty allowing a foreign country to export slaves to the US for sale to Americans? Wouldn't the 1808 prohibition on slave importation and the 13th Amendment, i.e., the Constitution, forbid such a treaty? Btw, this has nothing to do with other treaties so claiming it would nullify most if not all other treaties is fallacious.

Proof? An assumption, hence I asked.

You didn't ask, you concluded, for some bizarre reason, that I opposed "Bush's war". Whether or not your conclusion was in the form of a "question" matters only to you and Alex Trebek.

Useless analogy.

Just two examples of regime change that didn't cause chaos in either the short, or long term. Yeah, useless because it refuted your claim that there was a %99 likelyhood of chaos, or another dictator, replacing the supposed stability of the current situation.

Ozz -

You gave that up when you joined the UN which must have passed congress , or is this just a fancy lawyer way of saying your treaties are worthless?

Treaties are worthless when they violate the Constitution. Congress is a product of powers "we the people" gave it, and those powers are found in a contract called the Constitution. What if a treaty abolished the House of Representatives? I'm not sure why this is so perplexing to some people here.

chegitz -

#2 The constitution of the united states does not endorse socialism, but neither does it prohibit it. The closest it comes to taking a stand between the two economic systems are its provisions that the government shall protect private property or give just compenesation.

Socialists respect private property? Of course the Constitution prohibits socialism, otherwise it would have granted Congress the power to "re-distribute" private property, not protect it.

Dinodoc -

I'm somewhat shocked to see Berz support a war.

Only because of what happened the last time in Iraq and only because I'm stuck in a situation created by the Democans. If I had my way, we'd leave the region completely, lift the sanctions, and possibly have a nice reward waiting for whomever offed Saddam. But the Democans are intent on being involved one way or another, so might as well get it over with.

[Imran Siddiqui]

treaties themselves are the second highest law in the land.

Yes, they are equal with the laws that Congress passes. The SCOTUS has affirmed this view of treaties. A treaty can change a law and a law can change a treaty because both are equal.

Anyway, the UN charter is in no conflict with the US constitution.

Absolutely correct. Anyone that says otherwise is really losing it.

--

And maybe Ozz can be our educated Fez?

--

Oh, I used to sit on the fence, but I think more and more I'm pro-war. Though I see nothing wrong with keeping a bunch of troops in Kuwait to 'make' Saddam allow inspectors in and follow UN mandates. Kind of like a Sword of Damocles hanging over his head.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
chegitz -

Socialists respect private property? Of course the Constitution prohibits socialism, otherwise it would have granted Congress the power to "re-distribute" private property, not protect it.

The 14th Amendment states that the government (state and federal) shall not deprive people of their property except by due process of law, which means it can still be done. The Constitution also grants both levels of goverment the power to tax and create duties and tariffs.

[GePap]

The only constitutional debate to be had on the IUraq issue is whether the Congress of the United Satets has failed in its role as a counterbalance to the power of the Executive, or whether Us executives in the future can expect the Legislature of this country to act simply as a rubber stamp for any military action overseas, instead of being, as the Constitution speaks, the one body with the power to decide war or peace.

The US signed the Charter of the UN (which we helped write) and the Senate ratifid it. Under the Constitution, that means that what the UN Charter makes law is also law in the US. Since the US has the power to block anyting in the UN, nothing in the UN charter conflicts with the Constitution of the US.

[Berzerker]

chegitz -

The 14th Amendment states that the government (state and federal) shall not deprive people of their property except by due process of law, which means it can still be done.

The 5th Amendment says that too, but due process is about trials, compensation, and fines etc for crimes, not the 're-distribution" of wealth.

The Constitution also grants both levels of goverment the power to tax and create duties and tariffs.

But not a power to "re-distribute" wealth. Taxing power is to pay for government functions, not buy votes with other people's money.

Gepap -

Under the Constitution, that means that what the UN Charter makes law is also law in the US.

What if the UN legalised slavery?

Since the US has the power to block anyting in the UN, nothing in the UN charter conflicts with the Constitution of the US.

Not true, under the UN, the US needs UN approval for regime change in Iraq. We can block what we don't like, but that doesn't mean we can declare war and change regimes without UN approval because other countries can block us.

[GePap]

Oh please Bezerker, why do you come up with such far fetched things?

Why not asked whether they would legalize cannablalistic necrophilia? At least that would be original?

The UN system can't legalize "slavery", or the drug trade, so forth and so on. It is a structural issue, and I will not waste my time going into the minute details and legal theory behind it. Be sufficed to know that this "possibility" is not an option.

As for part two (I really hate those line by line things):

The Us argues that it already has authorization to attack Iraq under UNSCR 1441: it claism to already have the leagl means to do so. And yes, the US has no legitimate standing as far as regime change goes (which is a different aim than disarmament), but then, of course, thats why the US gets a veto. Remember Bezerker, the US was one of the writers of the charter and it created a system in which it can get away with things if it trully wants to.

So, to repeat, persuant to the Constitution (article 4 or 5, I forget which is which), all treates ratified by the US senate become law in the US. The US ratified the treaty t join the UN, so on and so forth.

[DuncanK]

"A recent poll by the Pew Research Center found that 57 percent of Americans did not think the United States should go to war without a new resolution by the U.N. Security Council."

I read this in an opinion piece. Does anyone know if this is correct?

[Lord Merciless]

I think Thomas Friedman from New York Times summed it pretty nicely: "An Iraq war could have enormous benefit for the US IF it's done right, but Bush Administration can't do it right.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by DuncanK
"A recent poll by the Pew Research Center found that 57 percent of Americans did not think the United States should go to war without a new resolution by the U.N. Security Council."

I read this in an opinion piece. Does anyone know if this is correct?

That is correct. Here's the link to the Pew site with the survey results:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=173

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Am I the only one that has trouble figureing out where Ozz is comming from half the time?

Yes, you are "special"

[Ozz]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No. I honestly don't know what he said.

Sorry, but I don't believe the US can use it's constitution
to aborgate it's treatys with other nations as those treatys have been ratified by both houses. If the treaty
is unconstitutional it could have never passed. if the US
does this it makes all it's treaties worthless.

Otherwise, while the US is a member of the UN it is
bound by the UNs laws and the US constitution can't
be used as an excuse to bail out.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui And maybe Ozz can be our educated Fez?

I refuse to be anyones headgear however literate.