The U.N. Charter does not supercede the U.S. Constitution. However, if we withdraw from the U.N. we lose the real reason to invade Iraq, which is that they have been in violation of U.N. sanctions and resolutions. Catch-22.
What the hell are you talking about? I've been thumping this same bible for months...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I already pointed out, we didn't seek U.N. approval for Kosovo. Nobody said we'd have to withdraw from the U.N. then. And we don't have to withdraw in order to proceed on Iraq. Thump your little "bible" all you want. The U.N. Charter does NOT supercede our Constitution. I'd love it if the left would try to argue otherwise, though. Argue loud and long.
The U.N. Charter does NOT supercede our Constitution. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course it doesn't. The U.S. Constitution does supercede Bush though. Drop the strawman argument. It's the Constitution that binds us the the U.N. Charter.
Repeat that: The U.S. Constitution.
So no one here is arguing that the U.N. Charter supercedes the U.S. Constitution. Only, you keep blabbering on about it as if someone is. That's the strawman argument. Argue against something no one is trying to defend. Keep it up because it makes no sense.
So no one here is arguing that the U.N. Charter supercedes the U.S. Constitution... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course you are. In an earlier post you wrote:
[quote]Yes, and our (former) Congress and President limited our options to justify going to way by signing the U.N. Charter. Our (present & future) Congress and President are limited by this decision. <hr></blockquote>
Our ability to conduct war is defined ONLY by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. NOT by the U.N. Charter. If we seek another resolution fron the U.N., it is nothing more than a diplomatic gesture.
Of course it doesn't. The U.S. Constitution does supercede Bush though. Drop the strawman argument. It's the Constitution that binds us the the U.N. Charter.
Repeat that: The U.S. Constitution.
So no one here is arguing that the U.N. Charter supercedes the U.S. Constitution. Only, you keep blabbering on about it as if someone is. That's the strawman argument. Argue against something no one is trying to defend. Keep it up because it makes no sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are starting to sound shrill. Take a step back, breathe deep and then go.
Let me see if I understand the issue here as you see it. The US Constitution says that it is the Supreme law of the land. In the Constitution is a clause that states that we are bound by treaties that we make and thus if we break those treaties we are guilty of treason. (Origional premise, no necessarily where you are now, I am just not sure at this point)
As far as the constitution is concerned, unless I am wrong The Legislative and Executive branch has the authroity to accept or not any treaties that are in standing and to determine what the treaty really binds us to. I am sure that the Current administration and congress have that in mind as they push for the UN to take a stand one way or the other.
As far as your assertion about the constitution superceding Bush that is just silly. The Constitution gives Bush that power that he has. It also, however, provided checks and balances to be sure that the Legislative and judicial branch have their say in whatever he does if needed. Bush can say lets go to war all he wants, and for 90 days or so (I believe that is the amount of time he can do so without the approval of congress) he can do so CONSTITUTIONALLY. However after that it all has to go through Congress as well.
The constitution supercedes any treaties we have with any other nations as far as any legal requirements they hold over the US.
Do I appear to have this right or am I missing some important fact? Bunge, I want your answer on the first part, as far as your understanding of the Constitution, you will understand if I don't trust your interpretation fully.
Do I appear to have this right or am I missing some important fact? Bunge, I want your answer on the first part, as far as your understanding of the Constitution, you will understand if I don't trust your interpretation fully. </strong><hr></blockquote>
My definition of treason comes not from any treaties, but from subverting the Constitution. If a president were to arbitrarily revoke the Bill of Rights through an executive order, I would personally consider that treason (even though technically it could be done.)
As for the Charter, we're bound to it as Supreme Law of the Land. That's in the Constitution, Article VI. We can back out of the U.N. Charter at any point we want, but then we must do so before an attack since we agreed via the Supreme Law of Our Land not to attack preemptively when we signed the U.N. Charter.
As an aside, if we back out we do, as groverat said, lose our basis for attack. A catch-22 in its own right.
This argument has nothing to do with Article I of the Constitution. Congress still has the right to declare war, it's just that Congress has already legally defined the reasons we can do so. Those reasons are in the U.N. Charter.
People here are afraid of giving up some of our autonomy to the U.N. Well you probably should have written your congressman back when we were signing the Charter. Thems the breaks of the game because legally some of that autonomy is already gone. We signed, and now it's the Supreme Law of the Land. The difference between the Charter and the Constitution is that we do have the option to back out of the charter.
But Bush does not have the option to back out of the Constitution. So the Charter must be adhered to as the Supreme Law of the Land until he backs us out of the U.N. That's why I say the Constitution supercedes Bush. He is bound to Article VI more strongly than our nation is bound to the U.N. Charter.
Sorry for the shrill tone NoahJ, especially if its repeated in this post. Just trying to cover several points and write quick from work....
If Bush decided to go in without the mantle of "U.N." what would happen to him/the U.S.? Would the U.N. punish the U.S.? Surely not, it seems like most of the Security Council is with the U.S. on Iraq.
If Bush decided to go in without the mantle of "U.N." what would happen to him/the U.S.? Would the U.N. punish the U.S.? Surely not, it seems like most of the Security Council is with the U.S. on Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's true, the U.N. wouldn't do anything because it's pretty much powerless against the U.S. (it's almost like a subsidiary...shudder to think.) If the Security Council is with us then there is no argument at all.
Personally all I want is for this thing to play out through the U.N., not because that's the only way to avoid war (ideological dogma) but because it's the right thing to do. I'm arguing about what's right and wrong, not what will or won't happen.
As for the treason, it's not. But I'd say breaking the Constitution especially when you're in a position of authority such as the presidency, is slightly more serious than just breaking the law.
<strong>Violating the law is not treason. How silly.
If Bush decided to go in without the mantle of "U.N." what would happen to him/the U.S.? Would the U.N. punish the U.S.? Surely not, it seems like most of the Security Council is with the U.S. on Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll bite
The issue seems to be this:
we live in a Universe that has no fixed rules
where Might could equal Right, IF it weren't for the developement of 'codes of honor' and fictions of right conduct based on 'reasonable action resulting from dialogue and agreement'
These codes of honor, a hold over from the age of Chivalry, are the only recourse that we have towards the establishment of International Laws
they are based on Gentlemen's agreements
That's it, pay no attention to the fiction that you yourself have signed onto and the game is up, it's world of meaning collapses: it is seen for what it is, a fiction: the Law appears meaningless.
One side problem with this outcome is that the notions of 'Human Rights' and universal justice are also part of the same sort of 'gentleman's agreement', an agreement that through this arbitrary set of rules we will mediate our actions for the better of all.
and when this standard is brushed aside in favor of MIGHT IS RIGHT then so are our the ideas of 'Human Rights' . . . after all, the whole notion of that the Constitution is a binding contract, with 'self evident' meanings, is truly nothing but an agreed upon fiction useful for mediating collective actions.
So we can break the Law that we agreed to create because, well, because we can, we have the POWER to, . . . but, perhaps if we quit the rules so easily then other rules are implicitly effected.
besides the catch-22 is a brilliant recognition there Grover
though I'm not sure this arguement is still relevant, I do think that that is what was at stake....
<strong>That's true, the U.N. wouldn't do anything because it's pretty much powerless against the U.S. (it's almost like a subsidiary...shudder to think.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, obviously not a subsidiary, if that was the case we'd be dancing around in Baghdad already.
And the U.N. is powerless against pretty much anyone/anything willing to defy it.
[quote]<strong>Personally all I want is for this thing to play out through the U.N., not because that's the only way to avoid war (ideological dogma) but because it's the right thing to do. I'm arguing about what's right and wrong, not what will or won't happen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Seeing how spineless some U.N. members have become, I don't think of going through the U.N. as necessarily being the "right thing to do" anymore.
France is historically willing to let people walk all over them, sucks that my United States have to play doormat with them.
Comments
<strong>I thought we were there at the *request* of the UN...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9904/24/nato.un/"; target="_blank">Nope</a>.
<strong>
It IS simple. Who the hell is conducting war on a whim?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Conducting war outside the guidelines set up by the U.N. Charter.
<strong>
Conducting war outside the guidelines set up by the U.N. Charter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just making it up as you go along, huh?
<strong>The US going on its own would require Congress to approve an official declaration of war against Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which has <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2318785.stm"; target="_blank">already happened</a>.
The U.N. Charter does not supercede the U.S. Constitution. However, if we withdraw from the U.N. we lose the real reason to invade Iraq, which is that they have been in violation of U.N. sanctions and resolutions. Catch-22.
<strong>
Just making it up as you go along, huh?</strong><hr></blockquote>
What the hell are you talking about? I've been thumping this same bible for months. Are you sidestepping the issue since you're wrong?
Read Groverat's post if it'll make you feel better.
<strong>
What the hell are you talking about? I've been thumping this same bible for months...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I already pointed out, we didn't seek U.N. approval for Kosovo. Nobody said we'd have to withdraw from the U.N. then. And we don't have to withdraw in order to proceed on Iraq. Thump your little "bible" all you want. The U.N. Charter does NOT supercede our Constitution. I'd love it if the left would try to argue otherwise, though. Argue loud and long.
<strong>
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9904/24/nato.un/"; target="_blank">Nope</a>.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, okay. Thanks.
<strong>
The U.N. Charter does NOT supercede our Constitution. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course it doesn't. The U.S. Constitution does supercede Bush though. Drop the strawman argument. It's the Constitution that binds us the the U.N. Charter.
Repeat that: The U.S. Constitution.
So no one here is arguing that the U.N. Charter supercedes the U.S. Constitution. Only, you keep blabbering on about it as if someone is. That's the strawman argument. Argue against something no one is trying to defend. Keep it up because it makes no sense.
<strong>The U.S. Constitution does supercede Bush though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What on Earth does that mean?
<strong>
So no one here is arguing that the U.N. Charter supercedes the U.S. Constitution... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course you are. In an earlier post you wrote:
[quote]Yes, and our (former) Congress and President limited our options to justify going to way by signing the U.N. Charter. Our (present & future) Congress and President are limited by this decision. <hr></blockquote>
Our ability to conduct war is defined ONLY by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. NOT by the U.N. Charter. If we seek another resolution fron the U.N., it is nothing more than a diplomatic gesture.
<strong>
Of course it doesn't. The U.S. Constitution does supercede Bush though. Drop the strawman argument. It's the Constitution that binds us the the U.N. Charter.
Repeat that: The U.S. Constitution.
So no one here is arguing that the U.N. Charter supercedes the U.S. Constitution. Only, you keep blabbering on about it as if someone is. That's the strawman argument. Argue against something no one is trying to defend. Keep it up because it makes no sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are starting to sound shrill. Take a step back, breathe deep and then go.
Let me see if I understand the issue here as you see it. The US Constitution says that it is the Supreme law of the land. In the Constitution is a clause that states that we are bound by treaties that we make and thus if we break those treaties we are guilty of treason. (Origional premise, no necessarily where you are now, I am just not sure at this point)
As far as the constitution is concerned, unless I am wrong The Legislative and Executive branch has the authroity to accept or not any treaties that are in standing and to determine what the treaty really binds us to. I am sure that the Current administration and congress have that in mind as they push for the UN to take a stand one way or the other.
As far as your assertion about the constitution superceding Bush that is just silly. The Constitution gives Bush that power that he has. It also, however, provided checks and balances to be sure that the Legislative and judicial branch have their say in whatever he does if needed. Bush can say lets go to war all he wants, and for 90 days or so (I believe that is the amount of time he can do so without the approval of congress) he can do so CONSTITUTIONALLY. However after that it all has to go through Congress as well.
The constitution supercedes any treaties we have with any other nations as far as any legal requirements they hold over the US.
Do I appear to have this right or am I missing some important fact? Bunge, I want your answer on the first part, as far as your understanding of the Constitution, you will understand if I don't trust your interpretation fully.
<strong>
Do I appear to have this right or am I missing some important fact? Bunge, I want your answer on the first part, as far as your understanding of the Constitution, you will understand if I don't trust your interpretation fully.
My definition of treason comes not from any treaties, but from subverting the Constitution. If a president were to arbitrarily revoke the Bill of Rights through an executive order, I would personally consider that treason (even though technically it could be done.)
As for the Charter, we're bound to it as Supreme Law of the Land. That's in the Constitution, Article VI. We can back out of the U.N. Charter at any point we want, but then we must do so before an attack since we agreed via the Supreme Law of Our Land not to attack preemptively when we signed the U.N. Charter.
As an aside, if we back out we do, as groverat said, lose our basis for attack. A catch-22 in its own right.
This argument has nothing to do with Article I of the Constitution. Congress still has the right to declare war, it's just that Congress has already legally defined the reasons we can do so. Those reasons are in the U.N. Charter.
People here are afraid of giving up some of our autonomy to the U.N. Well you probably should have written your congressman back when we were signing the Charter. Thems the breaks of the game because legally some of that autonomy is already gone. We signed, and now it's the Supreme Law of the Land. The difference between the Charter and the Constitution is that we do have the option to back out of the charter.
But Bush does not have the option to back out of the Constitution. So the Charter must be adhered to as the Supreme Law of the Land until he backs us out of the U.N. That's why I say the Constitution supercedes Bush. He is bound to Article VI more strongly than our nation is bound to the U.N. Charter.
Sorry for the shrill tone NoahJ, especially if its repeated in this post. Just trying to cover several points and write quick from work....
<strong>i stopped listening to that tagent when it started going on about executing people for treason for attacking iraq. </strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not treason to attack Iraq, but to subvert the Constitution. That's just my personal opinion though.
I believe the word you're looking for is 'unconstitutional'.
If Bush decided to go in without the mantle of "U.N." what would happen to him/the U.S.? Would the U.N. punish the U.S.? Surely not, it seems like most of the Security Council is with the U.S. on Iraq.
<strong>
If Bush decided to go in without the mantle of "U.N." what would happen to him/the U.S.? Would the U.N. punish the U.S.? Surely not, it seems like most of the Security Council is with the U.S. on Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's true, the U.N. wouldn't do anything because it's pretty much powerless against the U.S. (it's almost like a subsidiary...shudder to think.) If the Security Council is with us then there is no argument at all.
Personally all I want is for this thing to play out through the U.N., not because that's the only way to avoid war (ideological dogma) but because it's the right thing to do. I'm arguing about what's right and wrong, not what will or won't happen.
As for the treason, it's not. But I'd say breaking the Constitution especially when you're in a position of authority such as the presidency, is slightly more serious than just breaking the law.
<strong>Violating the law is not treason. How silly.
If Bush decided to go in without the mantle of "U.N." what would happen to him/the U.S.? Would the U.N. punish the U.S.? Surely not, it seems like most of the Security Council is with the U.S. on Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll bite
The issue seems to be this:
we live in a Universe that has no fixed rules
where Might could equal Right, IF it weren't for the developement of 'codes of honor' and fictions of right conduct based on 'reasonable action resulting from dialogue and agreement'
These codes of honor, a hold over from the age of Chivalry, are the only recourse that we have towards the establishment of International Laws
they are based on Gentlemen's agreements
That's it, pay no attention to the fiction that you yourself have signed onto and the game is up, it's world of meaning collapses: it is seen for what it is, a fiction: the Law appears meaningless.
One side problem with this outcome is that the notions of 'Human Rights' and universal justice are also part of the same sort of 'gentleman's agreement', an agreement that through this arbitrary set of rules we will mediate our actions for the better of all.
and when this standard is brushed aside in favor of MIGHT IS RIGHT then so are our the ideas of 'Human Rights' . . . after all, the whole notion of that the Constitution is a binding contract, with 'self evident' meanings, is truly nothing but an agreed upon fiction useful for mediating collective actions.
So we can break the Law that we agreed to create because, well, because we can, we have the POWER to, . . . but, perhaps if we quit the rules so easily then other rules are implicitly effected.
besides the catch-22 is a brilliant recognition there Grover
though I'm not sure this arguement is still relevant, I do think that that is what was at stake....
[ 02-07-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
<strong>That's true, the U.N. wouldn't do anything because it's pretty much powerless against the U.S. (it's almost like a subsidiary...shudder to think.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, obviously not a subsidiary, if that was the case we'd be dancing around in Baghdad already.
And the U.N. is powerless against pretty much anyone/anything willing to defy it.
[quote]<strong>Personally all I want is for this thing to play out through the U.N., not because that's the only way to avoid war (ideological dogma) but because it's the right thing to do. I'm arguing about what's right and wrong, not what will or won't happen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Seeing how spineless some U.N. members have become, I don't think of going through the U.N. as necessarily being the "right thing to do" anymore.
France is historically willing to let people walk all over them, sucks that my United States have to play doormat with them.
<strong>...sucks that my United States have to play doormat with them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, they might be YOUR United States of 'Merica, but they're OUR United States of A-'Merica.