• 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!

U.S. states' pot legalization not in line with international law: U.N. agency

The Senate only advises and consents. Primary treaty making power lies with the President.

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...

Here's what the Constitution says.
 
Didn't know the UN had any say so.

They dont. The guy is just doing his job, as is the UN, where drugs are "bad and illegal" because that is what the UN members have agreed on. If you have to blame anyone, blame decades of conservative thinking on drugs in the west including the US, because that is what has defined the official view of the UN.. which this guy is only following.
 
Here's what the Constitution says.

I understand that. The primary power still resides with the President because he decides who to initiate treaty negotiations with, he can decide to not submit a treaty to congress and he can decide to not finalize a treaty after congress has consented to it.
 
The United States is a sovereign nation.

It is none of the UN's business, nor of any other outsiders, what laws we make and enforce within the borders of our own nation.

That's incorrect. Article VI paragraph 2 elevates all treaties that the United States enters into to the status of federal statute. Only the Constitution itself supersedes them.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
 
I understand that. The primary power still resides with the President because he decides who to initiate treaty negotiations with, he can decide to not submit a treaty to congress and he can decide to not finalize a treaty after congress has consented to it.

What is your point? What I have stated is correct, and that's all there is to it. I think you just want to argue about small bull****. If there is a treaty in place that is related to the UN agreement on drugs, then we are obliged to follow it. It's not my fault if we were stupid enough to sign up for such a treaty.

God damn!
 
What is your point? What I have stated is correct, and that's all there is to it. I think you just want to argue about small bull****. If there is a treaty in place that is related to the UN agreement on drugs, then we are obliged to follow it. It's not my fault if we were stupid enough to sign up for such a treaty.

God damn!

I agree. We singed the treaty we are obligated to follow it until we decide to abrogate it.

My point is simply that the President is the primary responsible party with respect to treaties. Congress role is important but decidedly secondary.

I made that statement because of a statement of yours that seemed to say the opposite. If I got that wrong my apologies.
 
They dont. The guy is just doing his job, as is the UN, where drugs are "bad and illegal" because that is what the UN members have agreed on. If you have to blame anyone, blame decades of conservative thinking on drugs in the west including the US, because that is what has defined the official view of the UN.. which this guy is only following.

Pete, I feel it has always been a bi-partisan campaign. If you want to pin the whole thing on Republicans, that is fine, but the Democrats have their hands in this too.
 
Pete, I feel it has always been a bi-partisan campaign. If you want to pin the whole thing on Republicans, that is fine, but the Democrats have their hands in this too.

Where did I say GOP or Democrats? I said "conservative thinking"... I am fully aware that even the left wing was anti drug 40 years ago.. it was how society with massive influence from religious quarters saw drugs.. hell even alcohol in some times and countries. But it is that "conservative thinking" that is the basis of the UN view on drugs.
 
Where did I say GOP or Democrats? I said "conservative thinking"... I am fully aware that even the left wing was anti drug 40 years ago.. it was how society with massive influence from religious quarters saw drugs.. hell even alcohol in some times and countries. But it is that "conservative thinking" that is the basis of the UN view on drugs.

My mistake. I read it as republican.
 
Those UN anti drug laws were hammered into place by the US Federal Government.
 
That's incorrect. Article VI paragraph 2 elevates all treaties that the United States enters into to the status of federal statute. Only the Constitution itself supersedes them.

Such treaties are legitimate where they concern the dealings between our nation and other nations.

No other nation has any business intruding on what we do within the borders of our own nation. Period. That's what being a sovereign nation is about, after all. If we allow any outside nation or organization to dictate what we may or may not do within the borders of our own nation, then we give up our status as a sovereign nation.
 
Such treaties are legitimate where they concern the dealings between our nation and other nations.

No other nation has any business intruding on what we do within the borders of our own nation. Period. That's what being a sovereign nation is about, after all. If we allow any outside nation or organization to dictate what we may or may not do within the borders of our own nation, then we give up our status as a sovereign nation.

Much as I might agree with you that is emphatically not what our Constitution says.
Treaties - fully ratified ones as this one apparently is - have the force Federal statute either directly in the case of self-executing treaties or, in the case of non-self executing treaties, because they compel Congress and draft and the President to sign legislation that comports with the treaty provisions. I've provided the reference elsewhere and don't want to find the link again but look at Article VI paragraph 2. Only the Constitution itself is superior to a signed treaty.

I did a little reading on the subject and as it turns out the treaty referenced by the UN fellow is a non self executing one and our major Federal narcotic laws are written to comply with it. The narcotics schedule came out of that treaty and we basically lifted it whole and plunked it right into our laws.
 
Back
Top Bottom