World Court urges U.S. to stay 5 executions

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SlowwHand

I'm not a ghoul, I'm a realist. It's over and done. It's a shame for all, including him, that he was a ****up.

Of course you're a ghoul. When it comes to ridiculous mediaeval attitudes, you're right up there with the Inquisition.

After all, this is the state that wanted to punish two homos for having consensual buttsex in a private residence, and the same state that wanted to lock up those women for selling vibrators, and the same state where a school district wouldn't allow proper sex education even when knocked up chicks were filling the school hallways (there's a good movie about this).

Why should you be allowed to run a lemonade stand, let alone govern yourselves. I feel sorry for the minority of sane people who ended up living there.

As for you, Agathon, you can get in the same line as the World Court, as far as how much Texas cares about opinion. Don't like it, stay out.

If only you took your own advice.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

Because Che Guevara never killed anyone... right?

I am not aware of him gloating about it. He was a soldier, and the three conflicts he fought in, he was fighting against dictatorships that had overthrown democracies.

[SlowwHand]

Again wrong, Agathon. I would be for the execution of those conducting the inquisition. Totally different.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Again wrong, Agathon. I would be for the execution of those conducting the inquisition. Totally different.

Why? They only killed people who broke the law in order to save their souls.

[PLATO]

Why am I suddenly hearing Mel Brooks singing in my head?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by PLATO
Why am I suddenly hearing Mel Brooks singing in my head?

Early-onset alzheimers?

[chequita guevara]

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Again wrong, Agathon. I would be for the execution of those conducting the inquisition. Totally different.

Turns you on, does it?

[SlowwHand]

I don't know in which way you're stupid. Either you're just talking stupid and trying to irritate me, or you truly are stupid. I guess both indicate a leaning to the 2nd option.

[David Floyd]

chegitz,

The Feds cannot sign a treaty that is unconstitutional and expect it to be implementable. The fact that the Feds passed a law telling the states what to do is beside the point, if the Feds don't have that authority. Texas ought to comply with the World Court, but it's under no constitutional obligation to do so. Of course, they are ****ing over Americans overseas by refusing to do so, but Texas doesn't give a damn about anything but Texas.

In point of fact, I agree 100% with you, for maybe the first time ever

Texas had no obligation to adhere to the World Court, but I think that we should have. That doesn't mean we shoudn't have executed him, it just means that, if we had such a clear cut case, we should have granted a retrial with Mexican consular support. This doesn't mean we should have let him go free, or even commuted the sentence. We shouldn't have. The mother****er deserved to die, and die he did **** him But still, what would have been the harm of complying with both international opinion and the federal government?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I don't know in which way you're stupid. Either you're just talking stupid and trying to irritate me, or you truly are stupid. I guess both indicate a leaning to the 2nd option.

So I was right then. You need to see a shrink, dude.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Given the fungible nature of the commodity in question, why would we care if you want to make less money?

Security of supply. Your side was very concerned about it when negotiating NAFTA.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by David Floyd
In all seriousness, if Canada's provinces own the resources, then it would seem they can sell to whomever they want. OTOH, couldn't the federal government simply shut down their ability to transport the resources outside of the province? For example, if Alberta wanted to sell oil to China, they could do so, but the second the oil was transported out of Alberta, Ottawa could stop it, right? Another possible solution would be a 100% tarriff on the oil.

I think a case could be made that the federal government is obligated to do everything in it's legal power to fulfill a treaty obligation. In the Texas situation, it did so. I think you could also argue that in your example, China, by attempting to get Canada to violate some hypothetical treaty, would be violating international law itself.

What international law would China be violating by wanting to buy oil from Alberta?

As for ownership of the resources and selling to whomever we want, well there's a treaty in place whereby Canada agreed not to disrupt supply of goods sold to the United States. Alberta didn't sign that treaty. Alberta owns the oil, ultimately. I was simply pointing out that there might be quite some anxiety in some places in the United States if a province began to act as if the treaties signed by the nation don't apply because 'we' didn't sign them.

Your hypotheticals about what the GoC could do are a little more severe than the situation with Texas, SCOTUS and the federal administration throwing up their hands and saying there is nothing they can do about it, despite international treaties. That's the point.

[David Floyd]

What international law would China be violating by wanting to buy oil from Alberta?

None that I know of. It was your hypothetical example.

As for ownership of the resources and seeling to whomever we want, well there's a treaty in place whereby Canada agreed no to disrupt supply of goods sold to the United States. Alberta didn't sign that treaty. Alberta owns the oil, ultimately. I was simply pointing out that there might be quite some anxiety in some places in the United States if a province began to act as if the treaties signed by the nation don't apply because 'we' didn't sign them.

And I was simply pointing out that, in spite of Alberta's ownership of the oil, there is probably some maneuvering Ottawa can do to prevent SHIPMENT of Alberta's oil. There is a huge difference between state/provincial criminal justice systems and international trade. I don't know Canada's Constitution, but in the US, Texas can't commit to trade agreements with any foreign power. However, Texas is both expected and required to administer it's own criminal justice system, within the framework of the US Constitution. I would expect no less of Canada.

Your hypotheticals about what the GoC could do are a little more severe than the situation with Texas, SCOTUS and the federal administration throwing up their hands and saying there is nothing we can do about it, despite international treaties. That's the point.

Well, it's not as if the US government conspired with Texas to thwart the World Court. After SCOTUS ruled, there was literally nothing the federal government could do, because the execution did not involve Interstate Commerce or any other federal matter. Again, the US federal government actually INSTRUCTED Texas to comply with the World Court, thereby fulfilling it's treaty obligations. It's just that SCOTUS ruled that Texas was under no Constitutional obligation to listen to the federal government.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither

What international law would China be violating by wanting to buy oil from Alberta?

The unofficial one that says that white people are supposed to give other white people preferential treatment.