Skip to comments.
Feds finally release info on 'superstate'
World Net Daily ^
| July 26, 2006
| WND Staff
Posted on 07/26/2006 3:54:18 AM PDT by Trupolitik
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-109 next last
To: mugs99
Sure. INTERPOL... I guess a link backing up your assertion would be too much to ask for?
81
posted on
07/26/2006 9:32:44 PM PDT
by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
To: dennisw
The dots are pretty big, and they're not very far apart...
82
posted on
07/26/2006 9:43:17 PM PDT
by
185JHP
( "The thing thou purposest shall come to pass: And over all thy ways the light shall shine.")
To: Toddsterpatriot
I guess a link backing up your assertion would be too much to ask for?
Lets not get silly with a copy and paste link war. I can post many links supporting my statement and you can post many links supporting yours.
In the International Court of Justice case, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. acknowledged that treaties ratified by the Senate were part of American law. Nonetheless, under the U.S. Constitution, the power to interpret the law and treaties "is vested in one Supreme Court" he said.
In other words, it is up to the Supreme Court to decide if a particular treaty will be allowed to supercede the Constitution.
I don't like it and I'm sure you don't like it but that's the way it is in the real world.
.
83
posted on
07/26/2006 10:38:24 PM PDT
by
mugs99
(Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
To: Toddsterpatriot
That's funny! So I guess you have many examples of treaties that currently supersede the Constitution? Because of the mandatory arbitration and decision making process without recourse to American courts you can also include WTO, UNESCO, and NAFTA.
To: mugs99
Lets not get silly with a copy and paste link war. I can post many links supporting my statement and you can post many links supporting yours.Yeah, posting facts to back up your assertions is such a bother.
Nonetheless, under the U.S. Constitution, the power to interpret the law and treaties "is vested in one Supreme Court" he said.
OMIGOD!! You're right, that's unconstitutional!! ROFLOL!
In other words, it is up to the Supreme Court to decide if a particular treaty will be allowed to supersede the Constitution.
I think you meant to say it is up to the Supreme Court to decide if a treaty is constitutional.
85
posted on
07/27/2006 6:28:16 AM PDT
by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
To: Trupolitik
Because of the mandatory arbitration and decision making process without recourse to American courts you can also include WTO, UNESCO, and NAFTA. So if a NAFTA arbitrator decided that America couldn't place tariffs on Canadian lumber, we'd have to go along?
When I opened a brokerage account, I had to sign a binding arbitration agreement, does that also supersede the Constitution?
86
posted on
07/27/2006 6:36:29 AM PDT
by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
To: mugs99
Sure. INTERPOL...You can be arrested and extradited to another country where you can be held for five years without trial in direct violation of our Constitution. An INTERPOL arrest warrant can only be executed by the authority in the jurisdiction where the "fugitive" is located. For example, if the U.S. issues an arrest warrant for a suspect in the U.K., Scotland Yard executes it regardless of whether an INTERPOL arrest warrant exists or not. In fact, seeing that the U.S. and the U.K. are signatories to another threaty (whose name escapes me at the moment), there would be no reason add another layer of paperwork, and the U.S. and the U.K. will likely work things out on their own.
INTERPOL arrest warrants are used when the suspect is "country-hopping" to avoid the law, or when one of the states involved is not a signatory to an extradition treaty with the other. In other words, say the suspect is believed to be in the U.K., but may have fled to France. Instead of waiting for the suspect to be located before an arrest warrant can be issued in the local jurisdiction, an INTERPOL warrant is used as a spring-board to get the process rolling, by providing a centralized location/database where the two (or more) law enforcement agencies can cooperate.
In your italicized hypothetical above (I'd love to hear you identify a case where it has actually happened), presumably you speak of a case where an American suspect is under an arrest warrant from [insert banana-republic hellhole here]. In such a case, even if that hellhole managed to get an INTERPOL warrant issued (not easy, since INTERPOL assiduously protects its independence for the reason it does not wish to be seen as an arm of the "hellhole police"), INTERPOL itself would be powerless until the U.S. executed the warrant.
In sum, your hypothetical U.S. citizen, if he is arrested and extradited, has a beef with the U.S. Departments of Justice and State, and can take his dispute to U.S. Federal Court (and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court), most likely the one that issued the U.S. arrest warrant to initiate the process. Thank you for letting me share.
I must admit, the image of uniformed INTERPOL officers executing warrants in the U.S. independently of U.S. law enforcement is rather humorous.
87
posted on
07/27/2006 7:59:59 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: mugs99
I can post many links supporting my [INTERPOL]
statement and you can post many links supporting yours. Just one will suffice. Thanks in advance.
88
posted on
07/27/2006 8:01:42 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
In your italicized hypothetical above (I'd love to hear you identify a case where it has actually happened), presumably you speak of a case where an American suspect is under an arrest warrant from [insert banana-republic hellhole here].
You're right, it is a hypothetical. I've been assuming everyone was up to speed on the World Court debate. I'm definately guilty of premature ejaculation and will bow out until the International Criminal Court debate rises.
.
89
posted on
07/27/2006 10:56:39 AM PDT
by
mugs99
(Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
To: mugs99
The ICC would definitely screw-up my analysis, and as you certainly know, the biggest debate concerning the ICC concerns its authority.
90
posted on
07/27/2006 11:00:05 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
The ICC would definitely screw-up my analysis, and as you certainly know, the biggest debate concerning the ICC concerns its authority.
The Senate approved the American Service Members Protection Act amendment, but it appears our lawmakers are willing to allow the ICC to have authority over civilians...A direct violation of our Constitutional Habeas Corpus right.
.
91
posted on
07/27/2006 11:35:33 AM PDT
by
mugs99
(Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
To: mugs99
I really don't plan on "genociding" anyone soon, nor if I did, would I expect the U.S. to fail to prosecute me, and it's not likely the ICC will come after me for my unpaid parking tickets, so my BP concerning this issue is still rather low.
92
posted on
07/27/2006 11:43:48 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
I hear what you're saying. At my age, I sure don't have any concern. But, where will mission creep take this?
I've watched mission creep trample the Constitution too many times to believe the ICC will be limited to war crimes.
93
posted on
07/27/2006 12:28:39 PM PDT
by
mugs99
(Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
To: mugs99
Sure. INTERPOL... Was that your only example? I thought you had dozens?
94
posted on
07/27/2006 12:44:13 PM PDT
by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
To: Toddsterpatriot
95
posted on
07/27/2006 1:39:40 PM PDT
by
mugs99
(Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
To: mugs99
96
posted on
07/27/2006 1:45:46 PM PDT
by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
To: Toddsterpatriot
Little as possible...Don't want to get a brain sprain.
97
posted on
07/27/2006 4:07:20 PM PDT
by
mugs99
(Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
To: mugs99
Little as possible... Keep making those unsupported assertions. They require very little brain power.
98
posted on
07/27/2006 4:18:31 PM PDT
by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
To: Toddsterpatriot
I'm not at home Todd, so I don't have access to my collection of references and links.
99
posted on
07/28/2006 7:48:41 AM PDT
by
mugs99
(Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
To: mugs99
Take your time. Post some good ones.
100
posted on
07/28/2006 7:50:49 AM PDT
by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-109 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson