lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Democrats trying to ram through treaty that will overturn country's sovereignty
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 03-12-2009, 02:48 PM   #1
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Democrats trying to ram through treaty that will overturn country's sovereignty

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ion-un-treaty/


I really don't think the Mississippi should be under UN control, nor should the bridges that connect the Eastern United States to the Western United States be under UN control.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 02:52 PM   #2
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,047
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxNews
The American military is looking for another kind of certainty from LOST -- a guarantee of safe passage through all seaways, a right China sought to deny an unarmed Navy vessel Monday in its own Exclusive Economic Zone in the South China Sea.
Sounds like the Navy is trying to ram this through too.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 02:57 PM   #3
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
Sounds like the Navy is trying to ram this through too.
Highly unlikely, because the coastlines are different from the Rivers, but even then I'd be against this treaty.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 02:57 PM   #4
Doomie
Do the Black Mage!
 
Doomie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The black void...
Posts: 2,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
I really don't think the Mississippi should be under UN control, nor should the bridges that connect the Eastern United States to the Western United States be under UN control.
It's not 'under UN control', it's regulated by a UN treaty.

Furthermore,
Quote:
They say it could force the U.S. to comply with unspecified environmental codes, and that the treaty gives environmental activists the legal standing to sue over river pollution and shut down industry, simply because rivers feed into the sea.
This is a bad thing?
Doomie is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 03:01 PM   #5
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomie View Post
It's not 'under UN control', it's regulated by a UN treaty.
I don't really care, it's bordered entirely by the United States, and the UN shouldn't be able to supersede this country's laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomie
Furthermore,

This is a bad thing?
Since it's unconstitutional, the answer would be yes.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 03:06 PM   #6
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,047
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Your own source (which is the never wrong FoxNews) states my point, yet you deny it.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 03:08 PM   #7
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
Your own source (which is the never wrong FoxNews) states my point, yet you deny it.
It states the part you're referring to, but it doesn't state the Navy is in favor of this putting the Mississippi river essentially under control of the UN.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 03:15 PM   #8
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,047
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
True, but neither does the article.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 03:18 PM   #9
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
The Senate is gearing up to ratify a Nixon-era U.N. treaty meant to create universal laws to govern the seas -- a treaty critics say will create a massive U.N. bureaucracy that could even claim powers over American waterways.
-- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ion-un-treaty/

You were saying?
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 03:56 PM   #10
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Since it's unconstitutional, the answer would be yes.
I'd say it's in fact the opposite, considering that we're bound to follow all treaties we enter into, as it says in the Constitution

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 04:18 PM   #11
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
I'd say it's in fact the opposite, considering that we're bound to follow all treaties we enter into, as it says in the Constitution
The surpremacy clause is what it violates, because it gives up sovereignty over the river that runs right down the middle of the United States. I know it can be argued both ways but from my interpretation that is what it violates.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 04:28 PM   #12
SW01
3 Years in the Lurk
 
SW01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Northern Ireland, UK
Posts: 1,075
Current Game: Real Life
From the Fox Article:
Quote:
They say it could force the U.S. to comply with unspecified environmental codes
In a legal document? T'would be rather a pathetic one.

Quote:
The treaty allows environmental groups to bring lawsuits to the Law of the Sea Tribunal in Germany, a panel of 21 U.N. judges who would have say over pollution levels in American rivers. Their rulings would have the force law in the U.S., according to a reading in a 2008 Supreme Court decision by Justice John Paul Stevens.

"You've got an unaccountable tribunal that will surely be stacked with jurists hostile to our interests,"
I guess being one of the special club of veto-holding UN Council memebers doesn't count for much accountability, then.

Oh, and the assertion that it will "surely be stacked with jurists hostile to [American?] interests" brings one word to mind: EVIDENCE!

Quote:
"The whole theory of the treaty is that the world's oceans and everything below them are the common heritage of mankind," said Groves. "Very socialist."
Oh no! RUN!

God forbid mankind share any responsibility for those things we all possess in common...

Quote:
many of the benefits offered the U.S., such as navigation rights, are already international custom
Customary rights do not quite match legal rights that a signatory can be called on for breaching. What is wrong with a little more legal certainty in such respects?

Quote:
"The thing is about 150 pages long -- meaning there are exactly zero people in the Senate who have read it," said Groves.
Well isn't that a nice little unfounded jab at the collective intelligence of a powerful group? I would imagine that the sixty-odd senators that have degrees in the law would be able to digest that easily enough. Either that or the reading for law degrees has increased sharply over the past decade or so.

Really now, that article does not at any point quote from the treaty to back itself up, nor does it even offer a link to it.


SW01 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 04:32 PM   #13
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
The surpremacy clause is what it violates, because it gives up sovereignty over the river that runs right down the middle of the United States. I know it can be argued both ways but from my interpretation that is what it violates.
Fortunately for the rest of the world, you aren't the end-all-be-all when it comes to determining the meaning of the constitution.

How does it violate the Supremacy clause? In what way would it go against something in the constitution that the Supremacy clause would become relevant?

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 04:45 PM   #14
SW01
3 Years in the Lurk
 
SW01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Northern Ireland, UK
Posts: 1,075
Current Game: Real Life
Pursuant to Ender's post:

Quote:
Art. VI (2)
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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
If the United States becomes a signatory, then it is a Treaty made under the authority of same. If it does not, then it remains outside the treaty and any of its protections and benefits. Far as my humble mind can interpret, there is no conceivable breach of your constitution.


SW01 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 04:49 PM   #15
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SW01 View Post
Pursuant to Ender's post:



If the United States becomes a signatory, then it is a Treaty made under the authority of same. If it does not, then it remains outside the treaty and any of its protections and benefits. Far as my humble mind can interpret, there is no conceivable breach of your constitution.
Oh, I agree! This, in fact, was exactly the part that I was using to back my argument as well.

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 06:35 PM   #16
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
Fortunately for the rest of the world, you aren't the end-all-be-all when it comes to determining the meaning of the constitution.
In theory this could mean the UN could tax people on fishing, crossing the Mississippi, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin
How does it violate the Supremacy clause? In what way would it go against something in the constitution that the Supremacy clause would become relevant?
It makes us subordinate to the United Nations and cuts our country in half.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 06:36 PM   #17
Astor
It's Thornhill!
 
Astor's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Warwickshire, UK
Posts: 3,631
Current Game: The Old Republic
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
In theory this could mean the UN could tax people on fishing, crossing the Mississippi, etc.
And why, exactly, would they do that?






Astor is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 07:21 PM   #18
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astor Kaine View Post
And why, exactly, would they do that?
Because they would have the ability to regulate it is why.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 07:24 PM   #19
jrrtoken
Senior Member
 
jrrtoken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Because they would have the ability to regulate it is why.
That doesn't answer the question. Even if the UN had the power to do such a thing, why would they want to?
jrrtoken is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 07:25 PM   #20
Astor
It's Thornhill!
 
Astor's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Warwickshire, UK
Posts: 3,631
Current Game: The Old Republic
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Because they would have the ability to regulate it is why.
Simply having the ability to do so does not make it a foregone conclusion. There's just as much chance (if not more) of them not doing it.






Astor is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 07:39 PM   #21
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astor Kaine View Post
Simply having the ability to do so does not make it a foregone conclusion. There's just as much chance (if not more) of them not doing it.
Considering how much the UN wants to exert control over us, I'd consider it a given that they would try.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 09:07 PM   #22
SW01
3 Years in the Lurk
 
SW01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Northern Ireland, UK
Posts: 1,075
Current Game: Real Life
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Considering how much the UN wants to exert control over us, I'd consider it a given that they would try.
Well, it hasn't really worried America so much in the past now, has it?

It is more like this: the UN is the largest and most influential multinational body. In this Treaty, it is trying to get the world's powers to co-operate to protect a natural resource upon which we all rely.

UN Treaties are numerous, but I do not see any argument that, for example, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child should be abandoned because it 'invades national sovereignty'. Surely, that is another example of the evil worldwide Pecekeeping organisation trying to control and dominate its thrall of America?

And, on that point of sovereignty, it has been well shown, mainly by EnderWiggin, that there is no invasion at all of national supremacy, because your constitution makes explicit provision for precisely this. The US is not being pressed to sign. It has that option. If it chooses to abide by the legal framework presented by the UN, then it signs. Simple.

And finally, though I expect there can be no affirmative answer to this, can you adduce any evidence of the UN attempting to press the US to do something that it has not already bound itself by Treaty to do? For otherwise, it is an utterly unfounded statement.


SW01 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-12-2009, 10:55 PM   #23
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
It makes us subordinate to the United Nations and cuts our country in half.
You have not answered my question. Again, please cite the portion of the constitution that signing this treaty conflicts with.

Otherwise, the Supremacy clause seems not to apply.

Thanks in advance.

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Democrats trying to ram through treaty that will overturn country's sovereignty

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:06 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.