Posted on 08/16/2008 4:10:20 PM PDT by RKV
UKRAINE yesterday offered to create a joint missile defence network with the West amid fears that its port city of Sebastopol, home of the Russian Black Sea fleet, could become the next flashpoint between Russia and its former satellites.
The Ukrainian offer, which means its early warning radar stations could become part of the West
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Why would you want Marines to set foot on such unseaworthy scows? Just sink the d@## thinigs.
“Treaties trump feelings, and in fact trump laws. don’t think so? try nafta.”
Wow, really? Several points:
(1) Treaties vs the Constitution has been debated numerous times, but the issues has not been definitively settled by the SCOTUS (despite what some on the internet say in their blogs). The serious legal scholarship says that yes, as the “supreme law of the land,” a properly ratified treaty could trump the Constitution. The problem is that Congress would be acting outside of their Constitutional authority by ratifying such a treaty, rendering it moot.
(2) Ukraine is not governed by the US Constitution.
(3) Countries ignore treaties when their national survival is at stake. Or even by whim. Since this is a case of the former, do you really think a piece of paper is going to matter?
fair, I pointed out nafta, and thus invoked US interpretation of treaties.
1) I don’t (and you don’t seem to either) know what the legal nature of the agreement between ukraine and russia is on the crimean port. Do you have hard data on this agreement? I don’t.
2) no pending case exists in the US on this issue. None will, I confidently predict lol.
3) If this is a legal measure by Ukraine under their existing agreement with russia, it is less likely to be over-turned by the Ukrainian govt in some fashion than if it is ‘ink on a page’ type of technicality.
We return to point 1, since neither you nor I have been able to state what the respective parties actually agreed to with the port in question.
Yup, that does pretty much some it up. Nice little discussion there, btw. Good back and forth, but no rancor or profanity. Kind of thing found here but not on the nutroots, eh?
some should be sum PIMF
Ukraine should declare the lease of Sevestapol null and void, and proceeed to kick all Russians and Communists out of Ukraine.
Until then Ukraine can make access to and maintenance of that fleet very difficult for the Russians.
Expect an iron hand approach in Russia in trying to force Ukraine to Kow Tow to a long term renewal.
“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
-Samuel Adams
The mere fact that Russia attacked Georgia should be sufficient to negate that treaty in whole in any world court and certainly in the court of public opinion.
bump
Empty......so Empty.................
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to ratify Treaties. Thereby, it also gives Congress the authority to abrogate them.
“No. Point not well made at all. This isn’t the State of Crimea acting in violation of a treaty that Ukraine has signed. And as a party to a treaty, Ukraine has the sovereign authority to abrogate it.
“
Who is talking about Crimea as a separate political entity?
Have you read a translation of the treaty (I have never seen one)? Can Ukraine make these changes without withdrawing formally from the treaty? Does anyone, including you, know on FR?
HAVE they formally abrogated the treaty? As far as I know they have not, and unless I am wrong, the current events do not include them ending participation in the treaty. Please link where you have read that this is happening.
I will make it simple -
3 possibilities -
1) your suggestion - that they ahve abroaged the treaty...no more treaty, no more obligation to let a single russian ship dock, ever. I have not read that this has happened, though. Have you?
2) - the treaty allows Ukraine to place the various restrictions on the ships which they have announced intent to place. Too bad for russia.
3) the treaty does NOT allow Ukraine to place some or all of such restrictions within the framework of the treaty, which means Russia can ignore the related restrictions until Ukraine formally withdraws (see 1), which hasn’t happened.
“Ukraine has the sovereign authority to abrogate it.”
This does not appear to be what has been discussed, however. Non-renewal of the treaty has been mentioned, but that is a long time away.
“Yup, that does pretty much some it up. Nice little discussion there, btw. Good back and forth, but no rancor or profanity. Kind of thing found here but not on the nutroots, eh?”
Indeed, and thank you!
I think that if Ukraine does not back down on the port use issue, it may be the next flash point in the events in former ssr’s. There is a separate article about Russia distributing russian passports to people in Crimea.
The fact that no one seems to know what the terms of the port lease are (are they even public?) makes speculation kind of hard, beyond a certain point, on the legal side. Obviously there is a point where russia will react militarily if pushed hard enough, though. I wonder how close they are to it.
“The mere fact that Russia attacked Georgia should be sufficient to negate that treaty in whole in any world court and certainly in the court of public opinion.”
They do that now and russia will simply occupy the port - in fact, I would not be surprised if such an act would not play in to Russia’s hands. It seems highly probable the thought of separating Crimea from Ukraine has been carefully considered by Russia in terms of current events.
Short version: If Congress ratifies a treaty that restricts Constitutional right of citizens, is the treaty Constitutional? Opinions vary, but the weight of legal scholarship is no, it isn’t. The problem is that the Constitution does give special weight to treaties, calling them the “supreme law of the land.” The issue isn’t can Congress abrogate such a treaty - of course it can (as can the President). The issue is can we as citizens challenge such a treaty on Constitutional grounds.
The issue often comes up in the context of the ban on small arms that the UN is trying to push in the form of a set of treaties. Google/yahoo treaty constitution small arms UN or something similar and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
Sry, should have said “the issue I was alluding to” in the context of the tanget discussion of treaties being the “supreme law of the land” (as mentioned in the post that I was responding to). Another point was the Ukrainian law may differ, but we (I) got onto the issue vis-a-vis US law.
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.