Sure, it’s possible to have proof without a vote, but it’s not possible to have a legal justification for an attack on sovereignty without a vote. (And not for nothing, but the US did not have proof, either with or without a vote.
No. That’s not what 'Supreme Law" means. It just means that treaties are on a par with the most authoritative parts of the Constitution. They cannot be broken by a whim or a vote by Congress.
It is my understanding that the Constitution does not stipulate a process for dissolving a treaty but it would have to take something similar to repealing an amendment.
BTW, the US has not expressed any intent or desire to resign from the UN Charter. We just decided to ignore it.
And I will say once again that US law is irrelevant when it comes to questions pf international law.
Should we honor or treaties or not? Yes or no?
Does anyone still believe we were actually defending ourselves against anything in Iraq?
You are correct, but the court’s opinion, per my quote above, makes it clear how the hierarchy works:
- The Constitution
- The most recent statute
- A treaty (ratified prior to any given statute)
Oops. You are correct in the first part, but not equating the process to ratifying an amendment. Subsequent Congressional statutes override treaties, where they conflict.
A ratified Treaty is on a par with the consitution. They can not be overridden by statutes.
Wow. You are directly contradicting the opinion of the court in the case I cited. Did you read it? I’ll quote the relevant part again:
A treaty is on par with a statute, and the Constitution stands above both. Statutes passed after the ratification of a treaty nullify the treaty to the extent that they are in conflict. Couldn’t be clearer.
If you have a cite that counters mine, let’s see it. Until then, your statement has been proven false. I really don’t have anything else to say on the matter.
So you’re saying that the U.S. can’t withdraw from a treaty without a two-thirds vote of each house, ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures? Or, since the Constitution doesn’t really say anything about the subject of withdrawing from treaties one way or the other, that the U.S. can never withdraw from a treaty, by any procedure whatsoever?
There has certainly been a debate between advocates of the “Imperial Presidency” view of government and advocates of Congressional checks and balances as to whether or not the President alone can withdraw the U.S. from a treaty, or whether it would require Congressional approval. If the U.S. can withdraw from treaties only with Congressional approval, this puts them essentially on the same level as statutes, but below the Constitution. But I think the notion that we can never withdraw from a treaty, even with Congressional approval, is pretty far-fetched.
And the Supremacy Clause reads as following:
I don’t see anything there that puts treaties on a higher plane than statutes passed by the U.S. Congress, constitutionally speaking. Both are the “supreme law of the land”.
Exactly. And courts have made it clear how to resolve those instances where treaties and statutes contradict each other.
I didn’t say that treaties were on a higher plane than federal statutes, I said that they couldn’t be overridden by statutes. They are on the same level.
BTW, when did Congress vote to dissolve their treaty with the UN Charter? Are we still a signatory or not? Are we still bound by it or is it something which can simply be ignored at our whim.
And I must say again, that US law is irrelevant anyway. International law cannot be circumvented by sovereign law.
And I clearly pointed out that the Supreme Court says they can. Sorry, they get to decide, not you.
The Supreme Court is wrong. It’s not the first time.
That’s an entirely different subject.
There are countless SC decisions I disagree with (from the minimum wage, to affirmative action). Somehow I don’t expect you’d allow me to get away with claiming my opinion is fact in those instances. 
But statutes can be overridden by other statutes. So, you are clearly positing a third position for treaties.
If you read the full context of the supremacy clause, it is clearly addressing itself to the States. That is, it is saying that treaties are on the same level as statutes when State actions are to be considered. It really does not say nor imply that treaties have any super statute quality. If anything, it says that the order is as John Mace laid it out.
They did not. The administration appealed to the self defence clause. It may not be valid, but again, that is not for you to decide. Although, of course it is for you to agree or disagree with come voting time. 
Actually, you are wrong about this as well. There is as yet no accepted mechanisms for the UN to enforce its edicts seperate from member nations. International law is much more libertarian than you may understand. All “laws” have to be agreed to by those following them. Parties are only liable to keep such agreements within the bounds of their local laws and whatever sanctions the other parties care to impose.
You really are an enigma to me, DTC. You argue so rationally about evolution and religious subjects then make the most outrageously false statements about international law and gun ownership. I still haven’t figured you out.
I don’t see the ability to enforce sanctions as a criterion for whether a law is valid. We agreed to it, and there is nothing in the UN Charter which stipulates that we may override it with our own fraudulent statutes.
How come nobody ever wants to answer me when I ask if the US should honor its treaties?
I am quite a bit more informed about religion and evolution than I am about international or Constitutional law so I’m less inclined to talk out of my ass on those issues.
As to gun ownership, I haven’t really posted that much on the subject except to deride gun owners. I have never tried to make any legal arguments about it, nor have I ever called for a gun ban. I’m just expressing a personal opinion about my perception of gun culture.
Because you want to impose your own definition of what honoring a treaty looks like. No one has claimed that the US should not honor its treaties. Some are claiming that we have done so. You have refused to give any credence to them. Unfortunately you have done so with demonstrably false assertions and interpretations of the Constitution at odds with most others. Meanwhile you have done so with a derth of MHO disclaimers. You did not say, for instance, that treaties “should” be superior to statutes. You claimed that they are. Even in defiance of Supreme Court precidence and common sense reading of the supremacy clause.
You would never have tolerated this sort of behavior from a religious zealot trying to deny evoloution. Thus my confusion.
Though, I must admit, you were far more patient with the religious zealots you’ve debated than with those in opposition to you here. Again, my confusion.
Sort of an agent provacature on these issues?
Yep, I remember. But you made sweeping statements about all people who own guns which were clearly silly.
Hope I did not insult you. Just MHO and all that.
Because it’s a question without a general answer. A question whose answer depends on the particular context being discussed.
How come nobody ever wants to answer me when I ask:
if citiizens should obey the law?
if a man should kill another man?
etc.
I would say that the US should honor its treaties unless it would be against its self interest to do so. But that just brings us right back to where we started.
This is what I love about you DtC- your incredible Hubris. Many here would think twice to say that (as a Goyim layman) they know more about the Talmud than a Rabbi, or that they know more about Constitutional law than the US Supreme Court. :dubious: The few that would dare to say either would at the very least express it as an Opinion. But not you, Diogenes. You have no self-doubt at all. Even though you aren’t even Enrolled to Practice law before the Supreme Court, you have no problem stating baldly that they’re wrong. :rolleyes:
This isn’t a personal attack, I just have to admire your complete and utter self-confidence and Hubris to stand there and make those kind of statements in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are dead wrong. “Seldom right, but never in doubt” should be your motto! 
My god man- you must have balls the size of muskmelons. I salute you! (now, here, we have no smiley to show that I do seriously salute you for your Hubris- even though I think you are completely and totally wrong).
Thank you for an entertaining post. If I used sigs, I’d use
. It is one of the most amazing statements ever made on this board. :eek:
John, thanks for the cite. Do you have that one where the Appeals Court rules that the current “war” is legal?
I’m not sure if you’re serious or not, but I’m unaware of any court ruling on the legality of the war. Any statute passed by Congress is assumed to be legal until and unless it is reviewed and overturned by the court(s).
Yes, I am serious. It was cited here awhile ago. Seems someone went to Court saying that the Law Congress passed wasn’t Constitutional, as they could not “give over” their Constitutional authority to the President, or something liek that. The suit lost of course.
Is it really that important whether something in an international context is legal domestically? It just seems to confuse the subject and provide ammunition for the usual simple-minded apologies, since I doubt anything else (such as, for example, accountability) would come of it… if anything it would seem to encourage more foolishness such as unilateralism.
If the Iraq war was illegal (or not) according to the UN, what is the point of debating the matter by US law and constitution? The UN Charter is a set of international accords, not domestic ones. Kofi Annan hasn’t been saying for over a year that the actions of the US were in breach of the US Constitution or US federal law.
I thought the discussion was about international treaties etc. which the US signed and ratefied, but allegedly breached. The UN never signed up to the US Consitution, so what is the point of this “Americatist” approach when discussing international forums? The world is rather keen on the global context and legality, unsurprisingly; what seems to matter in this discussion is whether the war was legitimate by UN standards.