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

[E. Wayne Johnson]

The Constitution defines the ways in which government can be delivered 
to the people.
It would require an amendment to the Constitution for one of its tenets 
to be "overthrown".
Mere legislation should never trump the Constitution.  Many ills of the 
overgrowth of the
federal government and its insinuation into every aspect of our lives 
have occurred because
the Constitution has been ignored and treated as toilet paper, 
particularly by the Bush Administration.

You raise a valid point in that you consider whether or not the Congress 
might have actually declared
war on Iraq in the groundswell of mass insanity post-911.  You are 
correct that the War on Iraq would
still be an Unjust War even if it were constitutional.  Since an 
outright declaration of war might eventually lead
to forced conscription to build an army, it might not have been all that 
easy.  Who can say now, though?
But it is an  interesting question.

Certainly we all will agree that the Bush Doctrine of  pre-emptive war 
is Unjust.  That
which is unjust and morally wrong is also that which is likely to be or 
become illegal.
There is almost no doubt that if Peru or Colombia was attacking and 
invading
a country halfway around  the world and displacing its government
and wreaking havoc on the people , the US government would indeed
make some appeal to international law and intervene,
or perhaps the US would be drawn in and obligated under some treaty or 
entanglement.

But now let's put the shoe on the other foot.  Actually it seems by the 
dictates of logic that if it is OK
for the US to police the world under the banner of the UN, then the 
world would have the right,
maybe even an obligation, to attack the US just the same as the US 
armies attack and invade some other
rogue state.  UN tanks ought then to be rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue 
taking those responsible to
justice just the same as they might come after a Milosevic, Hussein, 
Noriega,
or some other 39-cent dictator like Bush (or McCain).


Stuart Levy wrote:
> 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
>>     
>
>
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080828/cd4ad9df/attachment.htm