[Peace-discuss] Trumping the Constitution (does that matter?)

[Stuart Levy]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 07:35:30PM -0500, E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
> Robert,
> The Constitution does not permit the citizens of this sovereign country
> to be examined by government beyond our borders.

That's interesting.  I know our Constitution limits the power that
parts of our government can have, but does it claim to limit the powers of
other governments too?  How?

> 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.

Well, hmm.  If our Congress *had* voted to declare war on Iraq,
which it probably could easily have been talked into doing at the time
if the Administration had cared to push the issue,
then this war wouldn't violate constitutional requirements
like those behind the War Powers act.

But, it would still be illegal under international law, and it would
still be in violation of treaties that the US has signed -- voluntarily,
as Robert points out.  The US gives up some autonomy in signing treaties,
but gains something in return, of course -- like, better support for
international stability -- or we wouldn't sign them.

So if Congress had approved the Iraq war, it wouldn't be unconstititional
(I think), but would still be illegal.  And immoral.  And part of our
pattern of imperial conquest.

I'd still want to oppose this war just as much if Congress had voted
for it -- hope you and all of us on this list would too.  So is
unconstitutionality the problem?  Or do you mean something else?

> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     
>>
>>
>>
>>   

> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss