[Peace-discuss] Trumping the Constitution

[E. Wayne Johnson]

Robert,
The invasion of Iraq violated the American Constitution.  There is no 
need to
refer to so-called International law to make your case against the war 
in  Iraq,
as Bob points out.

The problem with international law is that not all nations under 
so-called international law share
similar philosophies about what is good and just inside the borders of a 
sovereign state.  Other countries
in fact the majority of other countries might think that strong 
limitations on personal mobility and freedom
may be appropriate including various sorts of personal documentations 
and registrations from which until rather
recently Americans completely free.

The hammer of international law can reach inside the borders of the US 
just as well as it
does in some banana republic, or eastern European or mideastern rogue 
state, and then
we would all be quite certain that our constitution is being violated.  
Far better to point out
the problem while it is still yet manageable.

We should not tolerate any encroachment on the tenets of our 
Constitution in the name
of any high ideas like the UN or international law.  We cannot bear to 
be subject to
the tyranny of rule from outside our borders. 

I am surprised that you suggest that we could permit such a thing.


Robert Naiman wrote:
> I'm stunned that I have to defend international law in these
> precincts. In the salad days of my youth as a peace activist, one
> could assume that people who considered themselves peace activists not
> only respected international law, but saw themselves as obligated to
> defend it.
>
> Is it your position, Bob, that the US is not bound by international
> law? That the US invasion of Iraq did not violate US obligations under
> the UN Charter?
>
> If this is not your position, why so glib about this crucial fact?
>
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Bob Illyes <illyes at uiuc.edu> wrote:
>   
>> Wayne is exactly right regarding international law. Just because something
>> is a law generated by constitutional procedures does not mean that it is a
>> constitutional law. This definitely includes treaties.
>>
>> Permitting a UN security council decision to take us to war, for example,
>> violates the Constitution. This was finessed during the Korean War by
>> refusing to call it a war, as you doubtless all know, but this is childish
>> nonsense.
>>
>> More recently, Congress declared that Bush could decide whether or not to
>> invade Iraq. This was legal, but not constitutional.
>>
>> It is also routine for the President to legislate (thing published in the
>> Federal Register have the force of law unless contested). Congress could
>> vote to give the President all legislative power. If signed, this would be
>> completely legal, and completely unconstitutional.
>>
>> Organizations like the WTO are an anathema. They make binding laws but are
>> not elected. Is a treaty binding when it violates the constitution? I don't
>> think so, but international crony capitalism claims otherwise.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080827/7783cd6e/attachment.htm