[Peace-discuss] Trumping the Constitution

[Robert Naiman]

A voluntary agreement is not tyranny. To say it's so is to minimize
tyranny. Iraq is under foreign military occupation. That's tyranny.

Are you against all binding agreements, or just international treaties?

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:54 PM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>



-- 
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

Ambassador Pickering on Iran Talks and Multinational Enrichment
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kGZFrFxVg8A