• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John Kerry: ‘We Are Not Going to Lose’ Vote Authorizing Syria Military Action'

Snappo said:
You are incorrect. There is something called the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution. It guarantees that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that no treaty (or State Code) can ever override US Code. It doesn't matter to me what a POTUS signs in the way of treaties with other countries. I am in no way beholden to the UN or the laws of any other country. Ever.
Click to expand...

I understand that the domestic laws of the United States are not dictated by the UN, just as English Common Law is not formulated by that organisation. I am not suggesting otherwise. But in matters of International Law we are all governed by the treaties, protocols, and conventions, to which our nations are signatory.

Being the supreme law of the land is not inconsistent with being subject to International Law, which governs the actions and relationships between nations, not within them. Going to war, or attacking another nation, in breach of the articles of the UN, has no relevance to domestic legal supremacy. It is not a question of being beholden to any organisation, it is simply a matter of national integrity to honour agreements into which one has formally entered. Only rogue states do otherwise.
 
I say it's better they fight it out in Syria killing each other off so they won't be blowing up any buildings in my backyard or financing terrorism in Israel. When the bad guys are at war with each other you break out the popcorn.
 
reinoe said:
At first I wanted this vote to be a no because going into Syria would be stupid. Now I want it to be a no vote so that Kerry can have egg on his stupid face.
Click to expand...

At first I wanted a no vote because I don't see why it's any of America's business what one group of arabs does to another group of arabs. But the more I think about how evil both sides are; the more I think we should arm both groups to the teeth and let them have at each other.
 
Leo said:
I understand that the domestic laws of the United States are not dictated by the UN, just as English Common Law is not formulated by that organisation. I am not suggesting otherwise. But in matters of International Law we are all governed by the treaties, protocols, and conventions, to which our nations are signatory.
Click to expand...


I don't think we are, Leo. Here is a real world example of why I feel that way: The United Nations Small Arms Treaty that Obama and Kerry are in love with has clauses requiring a registry of gun owners, manufactures, and private traders/sellers. It also requires that each country create laws and legal mechanisms for preventing the purchase of ammo for any weapons that are owned. If Obama signs it and it somehow gets enforced, it would be a clear violation of the Second Amendment and the Militia Act of 1792. So whatever he signs can in no way be enforced because he is sworn to uphold the USC. Plus - what cop in the world would come to your house to enforce a UN treaty? It's not within his jurisdiction to do so.
 
Navy Pride said:
WHO SPEAKS FOR THE 54,000,000 INNOCENT HELPLESS BABIES WHO HAVE BEEN BUTCHERED IN THE WOMB SINCE ROE V WADE WAS PASSED IN 1972?
Click to expand...

How can a male Senator who cannot give birth decide if it should be illegal for a raped woman to refuse to raise a rape or incest baby?
 
Snappo said:
I don't think we are, Leo. Here is a real world example of why I feel that way: The United Nations Small Arms Treaty that Obama and Kerry are in love with has clauses requiring a registry of gun owners, manufactures, and private traders/sellers. It also requires that each country create laws and legal mechanisms for preventing the purchase of ammo for any weapons that are owned. If Obama signs it and it somehow gets enforced, it would be a clear violation of the Second Amendment and the Militia Act of 1792. So whatever he signs can in no way be enforced because he is sworn to uphold the USC. Plus - what cop in the world would come to your house to enforce a UN treaty? It's not within his jurisdiction to do so.
Click to expand...

With respect snappo, that is a not very effective example. I have read through the text of the proposed UN Small Arms Trade Treaty, and there is no wording which directly contravenes the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. If I have missed it, would you be so kind as to correct me and provide the phrases which are in contravention thereof.

For your reference - UN Small Arms Treaty Text As Adopted

The treaty concerns itself with the trading and transfer of certain classes of weapons across international borders, and cannot possibly affect the local right to bear arms as enshrined in the US Constituion. I can find no reference to a registry of gun-owners, arms manufacturers, and private traders/sellers. And if there were, I cannot see the objection to the registration of ownership of guns or other weapons. We all have to register our ownership of motor vehicles, so why not that of lethal weapons?

But at any rate, individual treaties or conventions are not obligatory, and any society has the option of being a signatory, or not. That has nothing to do with my point, which is - once you become signatory to an international convention, protocol, or treaty, you are obligated under international law to observe its requirements, and this is irrespective of your constitutional arrangements, or domestic law.
 
Snappo said:
How can a male Senator who cannot give birth decide if it should be illegal for a raped woman to refuse to raise a rape or incest baby?
Click to expand...

He was elected.
 
Snappo said:
How can a male Senator who cannot give birth decide if it should be illegal for a raped woman to refuse to raise a rape or incest baby?
Click to expand...

This is such a tired argument. Would you be willing to limit abortion to only cases of rape and incest?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom