[Peace-discuss] Trumping the Constitution

[E. Wayne Johnson]

Robert,
The Constitution does not permit the citizens of this sovereign country
to be examined by government beyond our borders.

The War in Iraq is also a violation of our constitution. 
One does not need to look any further than that to
resolve our problem with the war.

Wayne

Robert Naiman wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080827/e7a53218/attachment.html