But I definitely have an interest in both free enterprise and a free market -- both of which are inhibited by mixing "capitalism" with "democracy."
Capitalism and free markets are not synonymous.
I'll be the first one to acknowledge if I've got something incorrect. And Marikod pointed out that the Constitution really DOES override treaties. As relative right-wingers it is important for our credibility and ultimate success that we adhere to reality and not perpetuate myths.
Our point of view is solid, so we shouldn't dilute it.
So this morning I did some digging.
Marikod is CORRECT. (On this.)
With SC justices citing FOREIGN precedent to justify their opinions, there is no telling how long the current precedent will hold.
However, I did some digging (I'm always happy to be corrected) and the current precedent on that matter is: Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17
Some quick excerpts:
"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’
"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...
"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).
"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."
So -- we can rejoice! For now. Because, if 5 Supreme Court justices say it works the other way -- then it works the other way. So who you have as a justice is extremely important.
But our president supports alot of the treaties being rattiefied these days..And if our Anti American President chooses to rattiefy treaty's THEY DO OVER RIDE THE CONSTITUTION.. And Barrack has rattiefied 2 UN treaty's allready..AND cap and tax passing, or even being introduced to congress to pass, Is a sign the 3rd one has been rattiefied the Kyoto treaty, WHICH IS TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL..and can take our right to own property, TO SAVE THE PLANET..our poluting cars and homes.. Non of the un treaty's are constitutional, the CRC takes our kids..BUT OUR PRESIDENT IS RATTIEFIENG THEM!!! and rattiefied, they DO over ride the constitution..
and if theyre were dispute about treaty's over riding the constitution, and it went to the supreme court, WE ALL KNOW, they will rule in Odramas favor..as even the supreme court has recently PROVED how liberal they are, and now ontop of that, THEY HAVE A NEW LIBERAL, Sonja..So technically in this case, ANY treaty's odrama rattiefies, WILL OVER RIDE THE CONSTITUTION
we've got problems huston!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDbWs8q5fek&feature=related .... A link to ohios militia, looking for new recruits..But all our states have some miltia's, with video's, rounding folks up..Scary stuff..Look at how huge this is..and how many millions of Americans are in it.. Oklahoma says their's has shrunk while Ga claims theirs has grown by 7000 this year, and this one is RECOGNIZED by the govoner of Ga, and the govoner is this militia's commander and chief, The Ga defense Militia..WAKE UP
-- Modified on 7/11/2009 10:42:39 AM
We must still be extremely vigilant over the content of treaties.
That is because, notwithstanding the CURRENT ruling precedent, that precedent could be overturned by the Supreme Court on a single 5-4 vote -- thus bringing the full weight of those treaties to bear on our populace.
I think we should say, though, that we are "One supreme court decision away" rather than state that is the way things already are.
I agree we are in danger of such a decision as (let's face it) SC judges are federal employees. They have a profound conflict of interest automatically. Not to mention the clubs they may frequent on their spare time.
which I described below on how soft Totalitarianism works.
We can spend all day saving babies, and have one out of a thousand of us say something about "black helicopters" -- and that ONE THING will be shown to the world as representing all of us, and the sum total of our ideology.
We have to be vigilant to be accurate.
So we have to portray the U.S. as being "One supreme court decision away" from being compelled to honor terms of treaties that contradict the Constitution.
There are just too many sharp lefties out there.
And, on top of it, a large portion of the right wing will jump at ANY EXCUSE to do NOTHING and avoid risk. So they will be among the first to savage someone who says 99 things right and 1 thing wrong. They want to stay comfortable with their 200 channels of propaganda and respectable tea crowd.
Your politics get slimier every day. I smell the stench of a third capitalist political party.
I have no idea what you are talking about, but could you at least name for me (other than the libertarian and constitution parties) a "third capitalist political party?"
I dispute the idea of my politics being "slimy" and would instead characterize them as "thinking ahead." However, we're all entitled to our opinions -- even wrong ones like yours. (*grin*)
Thinking ahead? LOL . Your posts have a sort of "no mans land" flavor. I can't quit put my finger on where you're at. I know it's some sort of capitalism circa 1911. But it's probably just your reaction to the executive branch's intervention into the financial sector that has clouded your thinking. You want to bring back the old days of the free market. LOL Well those days are gone forever.
But I definitely have an interest in both free enterprise and a free market -- both of which are inhibited by mixing "capitalism" with "democracy."
Capitalism and free markets are not synonymous.
I can see that but "Capitalism and free markets are not synonymous." is a somewhat thorny statement at best . Capitalism creates markets that are free for capitalists to operate in. These same markets may be not so "free" for non capitalist "free" enterprise. Democracy has little to do with a discussion about markets.
Abortion would be the most likely candidate since you have to imagine a right of privacy in the Constitution to make that one work, a right nowhere mentioned in the text.
And the Second Amendment decision should certainly be given the heave ho, although I see no chance of that happening since Souter has retired. The scary thing here is that the court will go the other way and say the 2d amendment does apply to the states. That would wipe out tons of gun control regs.
But I understand your position, John, and hey it does have some merit - as Archie Bunker once said, the best way to deal with hijackers is to arm all the passengers on the airplane.
Yes, you could -- however, in this particular case, such a decision would be far more risky.
Never forget that Carter was followed by Reagan followed by Bush followed by Clinton followed by Bush and then Obama.
In other words, the power that the government has under a president with whose politics you agree will also be available to subsequent presidents whose politics and motivations you fear.
This is one reason why I opposed large portions of the Patriot Act.
Today, you may not be fearful of the possibility of the Supreme Court modifying the Reid precedent regarding treaties. After all, Obama is in the White House and you trust that anything imposed on Americans through such a treaty would be okay with you.
But we are heading into a period of resource scarcity. The Government Accountability Office -- not exactly a bunch of right-wing wackos -- has said that Peak Oil is both REAL and PROXIMATE and that it will destroy our economy and possibly kill millions. (Just search for the report via google.)
Remember the circumstances under which Hitler was elected?
You cannot assume the next president will be an Obama or a Bush. In terms of limiting government power, you instead have to assume the next president will be someone like Erich Gliebe -- the Chairman of the neo-nazi "national alliance."
Whenever you think about what power you want government wielding, you should always assume it will ultimately be wielded by someone who scares the crap out of you.
Repealing abortion or gun rights are a single issue thing. But allowing treaties to override the Constitution would be FAR more dangerous as they can be all-encompassing.
Right now, such a decision would instantly put Monsanto in charge of all food for a huge part of the human population. Already, under GATT, we are trying to force the EU to accept Monsanto's GMO corn against their will.
People who think Obama is a true leftist or Bush is a true rightist don't get the picture. Both are puppets beholden to special interests who mainly mouth words their constituencies find melodious. We must be careful about how much power we put in their hands because we really do not know their true motivations.