Time For An American President...

[PoliticalChic]

Not to hit you over the head with this..and kibosh the thread.

But what the heck.

1. Well, then, let's stipulate that The Big Bad Wolf fervently believes, and wishes, that the United States of America be subject to whatever laws the United Nations chooses, drafts, endorses.

2. Further, be clear that Wolfie has not the foggiest that Congress must agree to any such laws...as his quote from the Constitution was meant to rebut the OP....
...it does not.

"The draft of the Constitution submitted to the Convention of 1787 by its Committee of Detail empowered Congress “to declare the law and punishment of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and the punishment of counterfeiting the coin of the United States, and of offences against the law of nations.” In the debate on the
floor of the Convention, the discussion turned on the question as to whether the terms, “felonies” and the “law of nations,” were sufficiently precise to be generally understood. The view that these terms were often so vague and indefinite as to require definition eventually prevailed and Congress was authorized to define as well as punish piracies, felonies, and offenses against the law of nations.

M. FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 168, 182 (Rev. ed. 1937). at 316

3. For your further edification,

In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg).


So, at least until the assumption of Barak Obama...the United States had and enforced soveriegnty, and did not bow, accede to the 'law of nations'....

You may not withdraw your paws from your mouth now.

Um..not quite.

No where did I point out that international law supercedes domestic law. That's a wild extrapolation that's constantly made by you and your ilk..when anyone recognizes that:
A. The United States was never meant to be an Empire.
B. The United States should be good citizens of the world and play nice with it's neighbors.

Do keep up.

1. Why don't you begin by informing yourself as to the meaning of 'sovereignty.'

2. "The United States should be good citizens of the world and play nice with it's neighbors."
This sounds like an eight-year-old...and an eight-year-old that had been subjected to a public school what-passes-for-an-education.
Grow up. Wise up.

3. "No where did I point out that international law supercedes domestic law."
Actually, that's pretty much what your post implied....but I understand this retreat.

 

[Too Tall]

Not to hit you over the head with this..and kibosh the thread.

But what the heck.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

Now that you have pointed out the POWERS OF CONGRESS, tell us what this has to do with the powers of the Presidency.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Skipped right ovah my post did ya?

Now you know the right isn’t interested in facts.

Geller’s right-wing fans have hailed her as prophetic, especially for warning of the dangers posed by Muslims in this country, while progressives, moderates and at least some embarrassed conservatives see her as something entirely different: a radical activist who comes across as shrill, crude and offensive and who fails to distinguish between Islamic fanatics and the religion itself.

When the source has no credibility, neither does the material presented.

This President is clearly in favor of giving up American sovereignty in favor of the primacy of international law…

There is no evidence provided Obama wants to supplant domestic law with international. The Executive has no authority to unilaterally enact laws, and any actions by the Executive in that regard would be subject to judicial review and struck down. This is as idiotic as rightist concerns about Sharia law ‘coming to America.’

This nonsense belongs in the Conspiracy Theories forum.

" ...no evidence provided Obama wants to supplant domestic law with international. "

Better have someone who can undertand same re-read the OP for you.

 

[sparky]

PC demands refutations to her 'arguments' and then puts the people who can on ignore.

debating extreemism is always a dead end waste of time...

 

[007]

Seen it before from far right wing radicals...

Comparing propaganda with facts... FAIL.

Comparing far right wing radicals...pay ateention

Geller (is) part of “a long history” of firebrands devoted to “this sort of agitation. … These are people who have a fixation on some paranoid scenario,” he said, and they often become a focal point for wider passions.

While not discussing Geller specifically, Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, a neoconservative think tank, said the tenor of the conversation regarding Islam in recent months has distressed him. The “good part” is that Americans are now pushing back against Islamacists, or radical Muslims, but the “bad part” is that many are now doing so “in a crude way,” calling Mohammed a pedophile and referring to all Muslims as terrorists.

Many of today’s bloggers, Pipes said, “came of age on 9/11” and haven’t done the serious study of Islam that he and others have. As a result, he added, much of what they write is based on ignorance.

OK... I'll "pay ATEEENTION... ... to the fact that you have copied and pasted something in this post with no link, moron.

 

[rdean]

Since we have an "American" president, I'm not sure what this post is about? Oh, is it because he's "black"? Now I get it. Nevermind.

 

[Sallow]

1. Well, then, let's stipulate that The Big Bad Wolf fervently believes, and wishes, that the United States of America be subject to whatever laws the United Nations chooses, drafts, endorses.

2. Further, be clear that Wolfie has not the foggiest that Congress must agree to any such laws...as his quote from the Constitution was meant to rebut the OP....
...it does not.

"The draft of the Constitution submitted to the Convention of 1787 by its Committee of Detail empowered Congress “to declare the law and punishment of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and the punishment of counterfeiting the coin of the United States, and of offences against the law of nations.” In the debate on the
floor of the Convention, the discussion turned on the question as to whether the terms, “felonies” and the “law of nations,” were sufficiently precise to be generally understood. The view that these terms were often so vague and indefinite as to require definition eventually prevailed and Congress was authorized to define as well as punish piracies, felonies, and offenses against the law of nations.

M. FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 168, 182 (Rev. ed. 1937). at 316

3. For your further edification,

In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg).


So, at least until the assumption of Barak Obama...the United States had and enforced soveriegnty, and did not bow, accede to the 'law of nations'....

You may not withdraw your paws from your mouth now.

Um..not quite.

No where did I point out that international law supercedes domestic law. That's a wild extrapolation that's constantly made by you and your ilk..when anyone recognizes that:
A. The United States was never meant to be an Empire.
B. The United States should be good citizens of the world and play nice with it's neighbors.

Do keep up.

1. Why don't you begin by informing yourself as to the meaning of 'sovereignty.'

2. "The United States should be good citizens of the world and play nice with it's neighbors."
This sounds like an eight-year-old...and an eight-year-old that had been subjected to a public school what-passes-for-an-education.
Grow up. Wise up.

3. "No where did I point out that international law supercedes domestic law."
Actually, that's pretty much what your post implied....but I understand this retreat.

There is no retreat.

What there is, is something that resembles an advocation for American Hegemony. That little act is a bit tiresome considering it's exactly what the Bush administration did for 8 years when it adopted PNAC doctrine, hook, line and sinker.

It was ruinous.

But don't let that stop ya.

 

[Sallow]

Not to hit you over the head with this..and kibosh the thread.

But what the heck.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

Now that you have pointed out the POWERS OF CONGRESS, tell us what this has to do with the powers of the Presidency.

Well seeing we are discussing law here..you might want to stick to the topic. That..is exactly the domain of Congress.

No?

 

[007]

Since we have an "American" president, I'm not sure what this post is about? Oh, is it because he's "black"? Now I get it. Nevermind.

Even when it's over used, used when not appropriate, worn out and stale, you still throw out the race card.... you sir, are an abso-fucking-lute MORON.

 

[007]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Since we have an "American" president, I'm not sure what this post is about? Oh, is it because he's "black"? Now I get it. Nevermind.

Tell me...ya' think that will ever get too old even for you?

 

[Bfgrn]

Comparing propaganda with facts... FAIL.

Comparing far right wing radicals...pay ateention

Geller (is) part of “a long history” of firebrands devoted to “this sort of agitation. … These are people who have a fixation on some paranoid scenario,” he said, and they often become a focal point for wider passions.

While not discussing Geller specifically, Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, a neoconservative think tank, said the tenor of the conversation regarding Islam in recent months has distressed him. The “good part” is that Americans are now pushing back against Islamacists, or radical Muslims, but the “bad part” is that many are now doing so “in a crude way,” calling Mohammed a pedophile and referring to all Muslims as terrorists.

Many of today’s bloggers, Pipes said, “came of age on 9/11” and haven’t done the serious study of Islam that he and others have. As a result, he added, much of what they write is based on ignorance.

OK... I'll "pay ATEEENTION... ... to the fact that you have copied and pasted something in this post with no link, moron.

Which proves you haven't paid attention because I re-posted an excerpt from a linked article in my first post on this thread.

 

[rdean]

Since we have an "American" president, I'm not sure what this post is about? Oh, is it because he's "black"? Now I get it. Nevermind.

Tell me...ya' think that will ever get too old even for you?

Questioning whether the President is an American? You're right. It's old now.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Given PC is an unabashed troll, I see no reason to ever read the one-sided 'evidence' she offers as proof of her always and ever premises - conservatives good, liberals bad.
The non-ignorant recognize only extremists see the world as all black or all white and (sadly) do so ad nauseum. PC is one of many who try to dominate the debate with wholly partisan proclamatons and personally attack anyone who questions her 'authority'.

 

[California Girl]

We seem to have an outbreak of misogynism on this board recently.... it seems that, liberal or conservative, men dismiss women as 'hawt' or 'I'd do that'.

It really is pathetic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Um..not quite.

No where did I point out that international law supercedes domestic law. That's a wild extrapolation that's constantly made by you and your ilk..when anyone recognizes that:
A. The United States was never meant to be an Empire.
B. The United States should be good citizens of the world and play nice with it's neighbors.

Do keep up.

1. Why don't you begin by informing yourself as to the meaning of 'sovereignty.'

2. "The United States should be good citizens of the world and play nice with it's neighbors."
This sounds like an eight-year-old...and an eight-year-old that had been subjected to a public school what-passes-for-an-education.
Grow up. Wise up.

3. "No where did I point out that international law supercedes domestic law."
Actually, that's pretty much what your post implied....but I understand this retreat.

There is no retreat.

What there is, is something that resembles an advocation for American Hegemony. That little act is a bit tiresome considering it's exactly what the Bush administration did for 8 years when it adopted PNAC doctrine, hook, line and sinker.

It was ruinous.

But don't let that stop ya.

It's not workin'...

...I clearly indicated how the policy differs from that of Bush.


But, if you want to jump ship, I'll accept you...as long as you agree that any call to submit Amereican imprimatur to atavistic proposals, i.e., the UN, are at the least, his guided.
As is the current President.

Let me give you a test...to see if you're worthy. What do you think of the following:

Consider the United Nation’s attitude toward free speech.

a. “The U.N.'s top human-rights body approved a proposal by Muslims nations Thursday urging passage of laws around the world to protect religion from criticism…. The resolution urges states to provide "protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general." "Defamation of religions is the cause that leads to incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence toward their followers," Pakistan's ambassador Zamir Akram said. Nation & World | UN body OKs call to curb religious criticism | Seattle Times Newspaper The resolution was backed by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the UN’s largest voting bloc.

b. In a related story…” LAHORE, Pakistan, November 13 (CDN) — Attorneys for a Christian mother of five sentenced to death by hanging for allegedly speaking ill of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, have filed an appeal of the verdict, they said.” Pakistani Woman Appeals Death Sentence for

c. It is more than interesting to note that the UN’s Durban World Conference insisted on criminalizing ‘religious hatred’ speech, and, at the same time, proclaimed this to be consistent with ‘freedom of opinion and expression.’ http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/pdf/Durban_Review_outcome_document_En.pdf

Wonder how our liberal friends see this statement by Chairman of the OIC: “"I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy," said Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, the chairman of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference. "There can be no freedom without limits."

d. “If we give control of the Internet naming infrastructure to an international organization, we must expect attempts to censor the Internet. The Organization of the Islamic Conference will doubtless demand the suppression of websites that "insult Islam" or "encourage hatred," and a number of European countries may well go along.” Who Controls the Internet? | The Weekly Standard

e. From the OP:
b.“Barack Obama will cement the new co-operative relationship between the US and the United Nations this month when he becomes the first American president to chair its 15-member Security Council… the latest by the Obama administration to emphasise a shift from the strategy of the previous Bush administration, FT.com / US & Canada - Obama to seal US-UN relationship

 

[Seawytch]

Atlas Jugs

now THAT"S funny!

Somebody didn't think so...

Hi, you have received -625 reputation points from California Girl.
Reputation was given for this post.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I feel a need to repeat my post above for I'm feeling somewhat nauseous. I quote from number 34 above:

Given PC is an unabashed troll, I see no reason to ever read the one-sided 'evidence' she offers as proof of her always and ever premises - conservatives good, liberals bad.
The non-ignorant recognize only extremists see the world as all black or all white and (sadly) do so ad nauseum. PC is one of many who try to dominate the debate with wholly partisan proclamatons and personally attack anyone who questions her 'authority'.

 

[Seawytch]

We seem to have an outbreak of misogynism on this board recently.... it seems that, liberal or conservative, men dismiss women as 'hawt' or 'I'd do that'.

It really is pathetic.

When there are no other redeeming qualities in the individual, why not accentuate the positive?

 

[007]

Atlas Jugs

now THAT"S funny!

Somebody didn't think so...

Hi, you have received -625 reputation points from California Girl.
Reputation was given for this post.

Yup, she LUUUUUVS to neg...

Hi, you have received -625 reputation points from California Girl.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
.

Regards,
California Girl

I guess she believes that no one is supposed to think intelligent, conservative women can be hot.

Fucking weird in the head if you ask me... with a touch of narcissistic jealousy.