Time For An American President...

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Time For An American President...

We currently have an American president. In fact, all of the presidents have been Americans. The Constitution says so.

 

[Dot Com]

PoliChic's thread gave me the



I enjoyed a good belly laugh this morning. Thanks​

 

[PoliticalChic]

We already had a referendum on "cowboy diplomacy" in 2008 PoliChic It may make you feel better but the U.S. ends up w/ the bill when the country, Bush II in this case, goes in unilaterally.

Also, let me take a shot in the dark, I could be wrong, but I'm guessing the blogger isn't a vet either. Looks like an O'Donnell redux too LOL:
Pamela Geller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


and she also jumped on the anti- islamic, community center, bandwagon that is supposed to be somewheres a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. Wonder why she did that?

"...but I'm guessing the blogger isn't a vet either."
Veterinarian?
You mean I was correct about you being a bacillus?

Oh...veteran? As in military service?
They're the only ones entitled to an opinion??

Answered as follows:
"According to a ‘Military Times’ survey taken in September 2004, active-duty military personnel preferred President Bush to John Kerry by about 73% to 18 %. Sixty % describe themselves as Republican, and less than 10% call themselves Democrat (the same 10% that MSNBC has on its speed dial.) Even among veterans, Republicans outnumber Democrats 46% to 22%.

If those of us who didn’t fight are wimps who don’t know the real truth of war, I say, fine. Let’s allow only combat veterans and active e military members to vote. Everybody else shut up- including me and the vast majority of liberals. Kerry, Kerrey, Cleveland, Inouye, and Murtha- that’s it; they’ve got five votes."
Coulter

Ironic and funny that you should post that. You're prolly not aware of this so I posted it for you. You're welcome ;-)

# Mitch McConnell, the current Republican leader in the U.S. Senate: did not serve.
# Bill Frist,, the former Republican leader in the U.S. Senate: did not serve.
# Trent Lott, the former Republican leader in the U.S. Senate: avoided the draft, did not serve.
# Saxby Chambliss: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments, to teach business.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
# Phil Gramm: did not serve.
# Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
# Jon Kyl: did not serve.
# Newt Gingrich – sought graduate school deferment, (too smart to die).
# Majority Leader Dick Armey – avoided the draft, did not serve.
# Majority Leader Tom Delay – avoided the draft, did not serve.
# Majority Leader John A. Boehner – did not serve.
# Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years.
* G.O.P. Leader Roy Blunt: did not serve.
# JC Watts: did not serve.
# Bob Barr: did not serve.
# Katherine Harris: did not serve. .
# Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, and since presidential candidate: did not serve.
# Kenneth Starr : sought deferment (for psoriasis).
# Bill Bennett : sought graduate school deferment, (too smart to die).
# Ted Olson, (Starr's assistant, and since Solictor General)
# Rush Limbaugh – sought deferment (because of a cyst on his tail end).
# (Rush's conservative brother) David Limbaugh: did not serve.
# George Will – sought graduate school deferment, (too smart to die).
# Pat Buchanan – sought deferment (for bad knee).
# Pat Robertson – his US Senator father got him out of Korea as soon as the shooting began.
# John Wayne obtained deferments (but to his credit, it was for good, not superficial, reasons.
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Matt Drudge: did not serve.
* Steve Forbes: did not serve.
* Tony Snow: did not serve.
* Michael "Savage" (Weiner): did not serve.
* Brit Hume: did not serve.
* Roger Ailes: did not serve.
# Paul Gigot: did not serve.
# Bill Kristol: did not serve.
# Ralph Reed: did not serve.
# Michael Medved: did not serve.
# Anne Coulter: did not serve.
# Jerry Falwell: did not serve.
# Alan Keyes : did not serve.
# Ted Nugent: did not serve.

Nice deflection. I was asking about the vet-status of your beloved blogger.

My response....(I hate having to provide comprehension for you guys) was that in the United States of America, having an opinion is not contingent upon having served in the military.

You should consider a visit here sometime.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Time For An American President...

We currently have an American president. In fact, all of the presidents have been Americans. The Constitution says so.

Answered in post #44.

 

[Shadow]

Wow! Look at all the lame attacks on the messenger....how about a little attention to the OP?

We were just told in another thread that this is a tactic used to silence free speech. Obviously they don't WANT to talk about it...too scary.

 

[Shadow]

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.

So...why shouldn't they? The women play right along with the "look at me...look at me... I'm sooo hawt with my nekkid avitar" schtick to gain attention. Can't have it both ways IMO.

 

[Dot Com]

Wow! Look at all the lame attacks on the messenger....how about a little attention to the OP?

We were just told in another thread that this is a tactic used to silence free speech. Obviously they don't WANT to talk about it...too scary.

Yeah, Geller frightens us LOL

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.

So...why shouldn't they? The women play right along with the "look at me...look at me... I'm sooo hawt with my nekkid avitar" schtick to gain attention. Can't have it both ways IMO.

Agreed. Case in point the thread starter and her comrade who stopped by. Both use stereotypical barbie-esque like AV's.

 

[Sallow]

Time For An American President...

We currently have an American president. In fact, all of the presidents have been Americans. The Constitution says so.

Answered in post #44.

In what regard?

You don't have the standing really to decide what or what isn't American. No one has. I mean..you can personally do that..but expect to be challenged.

 

[Shadow]

Wow! Look at all the lame attacks on the messenger....how about a little attention to the OP?

We were just told in another thread that this is a tactic used to silence free speech. Obviously they don't WANT to talk about it...too scary.

Yeah, Geller frightens us LOL

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.

So...why shouldn't they? The women play right along with the "look at me...look at me... I'm sooo hawt with my nekkid avitar" schtick to gain attention. Can't have it both ways IMO.

Agreed. Case in point the thread starter and her comrade who stopped by. Both use stereotypical barbie-esque like AV's.

Geller frightens you alright...Which would be why you don't want to address the issues she brings up. Just want to attack her for being a woman....and draw attention to her sexuality.

Next you dopes will trot out all of the usual female stereotypes.

 

[Desol]

Pamela Geller, in her book “The Post-American Presidency,” has some interesting perceptins as to the Obama antipathy to American sovereignty.

Did American suddenly change, or is this another example of the MSM hiding a candidates true motivations?

And how will Americans view Obama 'internationalism' in 2012?

Hi, I'm new.

Your first premise is really summed up in 1c. The idea that American exceptionalism is being set aside for international law. However, I would disagree. It has been the Americans that have been leading international norms for decades (since WW2 and the Marshall Plan). The creation of the League of Nations was the vision of Wilson (see his Fourteen Points speech). The League of Nations failed because the two stakeholders at the time (Russia and the US) didn't join it. The UN was imagined by Roosevelt, and the US played a large role in the development of the UN's legal frameworks.

So, while I agree that Obama's "since our founding" is a bit of a stretch, it would be fair to say that the United States has championed international law, promoting strong international norms that helps the US advance many interests. Human rights, non-proliferation of nuclear arms, and liberalisation of markets have certainly been in the US's best interests.

Your second point addresses the fact that the UN is hypocritical in some ways. And you are completely right to point them out. The UN as an international governance organ is not perfect. However, contra your first point, it will require US leadership to make the UN a more effective organ on the international stage. At the end of the day, I get the sense that you're a supporter of Israel, and dislike the fact that the Human Rights Council focused on Israel in its current session. I don't have a position on Israel, but I will note that it is the biggest violator of sanctions in the UN.

Finally, as per my first point, I don't think shunning the UN is a constructive way to be a world leader. Some cite the US as a reluctant hegemon, whether you think that's true or not I think it holds some shade of truth. What I feel Obama is doing is rightfully taking the responsibility that we have has a country to lead the world. That is exceptional. Of course, I sense that we have fundamental philosophical disagreements when it comes to this point, so I look forward to your response.

Third, I will just start by saying that international law is fairly thorny. There is something called the paradox of international law. Basically, when it suits me, I will abide by it, and when it doesn't I will ignore it. In short, the regime of international law lacks punitive power. The US is not alone in this mindset. China and Russia recently let the ICC some action in Gadhafi's case, but up until then, had condemned the ICC as useless and an erosion of sovereignty. Again, as per point 1, I believe that it is in America's best interest to shape the foundations of international law, as opposed to ignoring it. By participating in such institutions, the US instantly gains a level of sway over the decision making process. Here I take a realist view, in that by being a part of the process, the US gains a large hand in deciding the shape of that institution. This is in our best interest.

Fourth, America has always tried to find multi-lateral solutions for international problems. Since World War I, it has tried to address issues of international scope using international means. I think Kerry's vision of American on the international stage is more in keeping with its exceptionalism than simply military muscle. As you can see, asymmetrical warfare has reduced the effectiveness of mere military power. To cling to one part of America's exceptionalism at the expense of others is precisely what we should be avoiding.

Finally, to address your questions.
1) I think, in contrast to Bush, you're right to say that it is a different world view. However, given that Obama had books out about what he'd do, this comes as no surprise to those that investigated him. I would suggest that, instead of relying on media (main stream or otherwise), you investigate candidates on your own.

2) Internationalism and foreign policy will likely be a very small subscript in the 2012 campaign. Overwhelmingly, the topic of discussion will be the economy. I think that Obama's internationalism is a good thing, as I have chosen to frame it as an exercise of America's exceptionalism, a view that you (from what I gather) do not share.

Look forward to your response.

[edit]

I realize I sidestepped your question of sovereignty all together. Here let me articulate how I see this interaction. The US (or any country really) will remain sovereign simply because they control the extent to which they will participate in international regimes (again, the paradox of international law). Also, I see this argument parallel to the question of state sovereignty and international markets. In the end, such international organs give new avenues of sovereign power to countries while mediating other sovereign powers. I don't necessarily see this as a retreat of the state, but rather the constitution of a new kind of sovereign power. The argument is based on the fact that the paradox of international law exists, and the US (or any country) would be able to dictate the terms in which they "erode" their own sovereignty. So while, on the surface, you are correct in that there is an encroachment of sovereignty, the reality is more complicated than you care to admit.

At the end of the day, international governance is still rooted in a state system, and so these states will retain vital sovereign functions that will never be given up to the extent that you seem to extrapolate. In other words, it's not quite as gloomy as you think it will be.

 

[Dot Com]

Pamela Geller, in her book “The Post-American Presidency,” has some interesting perceptins as to the Obama antipathy to American sovereignty.

Did American suddenly change, or is this another example of the MSM hiding a candidates true motivations?

And how will Americans view Obama 'internationalism' in 2012?

Hi, I'm new.

Your first premise is really summed up in 1c. The idea that American exceptionalism is being set aside for international law. However, I would disagree. It has been the Americans that have been leading international norms for decades (since WW2 and the Marshall Plan). The creation of the League of Nations was the vision of Wilson (see his Fourteen Points speech). The League of Nations failed because the two stakeholders at the time (Russia and the US) didn't join it. The UN was imagined by Roosevelt, and the US played a large role in the development of the UN's legal frameworks.

So, while I agree that Obama's "since our founding" is a bit of a stretch, it would be fair to say that the United States has championed international law, promoting strong international norms that helps the US advance many interests. Human rights, non-proliferation of nuclear arms, and liberalisation of markets have certainly been in the US's best interests.

Your second point addresses the fact that the UN is hypocritical in some ways. And you are completely right to point them out. The UN as an international governance organ is not perfect. However, contra your first point, it will require US leadership to make the UN a more effective organ on the international stage. At the end of the day, I get the sense that you're a supporter of Israel, and dislike the fact that the Human Rights Council focused on Israel in its current session. I don't have a position on Israel, but I will note that it is the biggest violator of sanctions in the UN.

Finally, as per my first point, I don't think shunning the UN is a constructive way to be a world leader. Some cite the US as a reluctant hegemon, whether you think that's true or not I think it holds some shade of truth. What I feel Obama is doing is rightfully taking the responsibility that we have has a country to lead the world. That is exceptional. Of course, I sense that we have fundamental philosophical disagreements when it comes to this point, so I look forward to your response.

Third, I will just start by saying that international law is fairly thorny. There is something called the paradox of international law. Basically, when it suits me, I will abide by it, and when it doesn't I will ignore it. In short, the regime of international law lacks punitive power. The US is not alone in this mindset. China and Russia recently let the ICC some action in Gadhafi's case, but up until then, had condemned the ICC as useless and an erosion of sovereignty. Again, as per point 1, I believe that it is in America's best interest to shape the foundations of international law, as opposed to ignoring it. By participating in such institutions, the US instantly gains a level of sway over the decision making process. Here I take a realist view, in that by being a part of the process, the US gains a large hand in deciding the shape of that institution. This is in our best interest.

Fourth, America has always tried to find multi-lateral solutions for international problems. Since World War I, it has tried to address issues of international scope using international means. I think Kerry's vision of American on the international stage is more in keeping with its exceptionalism than simply military muscle. As you can see, asymmetrical warfare has reduced the effectiveness of mere military power. To cling to one part of America's exceptionalism at the expense of others is precisely what we should be avoiding.

Finally, to address your questions.
1) I think, in contrast to Bush, you're right to say that it is a different world view. However, given that Obama had books out about what he'd do, this comes as no surprise to those that investigated him. I would suggest that, instead of relying on media (main stream or otherwise), you investigate candidates on your own.

2) Internationalism and foreign policy will likely be a very small subscript in the 2012 campaign. Overwhelmingly, the topic of discussion will be the economy. I think that Obama's internationalism is a good thing, as I have chosen to frame it as an exercise of America's exceptionalism, a view that you (from what I gather) do not share.

Look forward to your response.

HEY!!!You're rational Good post PoliChic won't like it though

 

[PoliticalChic]

We currently have an American president. In fact, all of the presidents have been Americans. The Constitution says so.

Answered in post #44.

In what regard?

You don't have the standing really to decide what or what isn't American. No one has. I mean..you can personally do that..but expect to be challenged.

1. In what regard? Simply put, "...isn't it time for a President who will support our independence from- to coin a phrase- 'foreign entanglements'?"
That from #44.
We deserve a President who will recognize American exceptionalism, and fight dilution of same by bowing and acquiescing to leaders and societies that have not yet reached our level.

2. "decide what or what isn't American. No one has. I mean..you can personally do that..but expect to be challenged."
What!!

Open your eyes, Wolfie (the better to see with)...I live to be challenged!
My principle reason for posting on USMB is that there are ideas accepted by many that need to be examined, challenged and, if possible defeated.

You are a case in point...as you have stated that you wish to live under the Constitution, I think there is an itsy-bitsy outside chance that you can be saved!
(I could be wrong.)

 

[Desol]

HEY!!!You're rational Good post PoliChic won't like it though

Rationality is, unfortunately, subjective. I just hope we can rise above the name calling and have substantive discussions. Usually, these disagreements arise from fundamental philosophical differences, so my goal here isn't so much to refute her point of view, but rather, provide an alternative view for her to consider.

 

[Dot Com]

HEY!!!You're rational Good post PoliChic won't like it though

Rationality is, unfortunately, subjective. I just hope we can rise above the name calling and have substantive discussions. Usually, these disagreements arise from fundamental philosophical differences, so my goal here isn't so much to refute her point of view, but rather, provide an alternative view for her to consider.

She's as far to the right as is prolly possible on this board. Don't count on it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pamela Geller, in her book “The Post-American Presidency,” has some interesting perceptins as to the Obama antipathy to American sovereignty.

Did American suddenly change, or is this another example of the MSM hiding a candidates true motivations?

And how will Americans view Obama 'internationalism' in 2012?

Hi, I'm new.

Your first premise is really summed up in 1c. The idea that American exceptionalism is being set aside for international law. However, I would disagree. It has been the Americans that have been leading international norms for decades (since WW2 and the Marshall Plan). The creation of the League of Nations was the vision of Wilson (see his Fourteen Points speech). The League of Nations failed because the two stakeholders at the time (Russia and the US) didn't join it. The UN was imagined by Roosevelt, and the US played a large role in the development of the UN's legal frameworks.

So, while I agree that Obama's "since our founding" is a bit of a stretch, it would be fair to say that the United States has championed international law, promoting strong international norms that helps the US advance many interests. Human rights, non-proliferation of nuclear arms, and liberalisation of markets have certainly been in the US's best interests.

Your second point addresses the fact that the UN is hypocritical in some ways. And you are completely right to point them out. The UN as an international governance organ is not perfect. However, contra your first point, it will require US leadership to make the UN a more effective organ on the international stage. At the end of the day, I get the sense that you're a supporter of Israel, and dislike the fact that the Human Rights Council focused on Israel in its current session. I don't have a position on Israel, but I will note that it is the biggest violator of sanctions in the UN.

Finally, as per my first point, I don't think shunning the UN is a constructive way to be a world leader. Some cite the US as a reluctant hegemon, whether you think that's true or not I think it holds some shade of truth. What I feel Obama is doing is rightfully taking the responsibility that we have has a country to lead the world. That is exceptional. Of course, I sense that we have fundamental philosophical disagreements when it comes to this point, so I look forward to your response.

Third, I will just start by saying that international law is fairly thorny. There is something called the paradox of international law. Basically, when it suits me, I will abide by it, and when it doesn't I will ignore it. In short, the regime of international law lacks punitive power. The US is not alone in this mindset. China and Russia recently let the ICC some action in Gadhafi's case, but up until then, had condemned the ICC as useless and an erosion of sovereignty. Again, as per point 1, I believe that it is in America's best interest to shape the foundations of international law, as opposed to ignoring it. By participating in such institutions, the US instantly gains a level of sway over the decision making process. Here I take a realist view, in that by being a part of the process, the US gains a large hand in deciding the shape of that institution. This is in our best interest.

Fourth, America has always tried to find multi-lateral solutions for international problems. Since World War I, it has tried to address issues of international scope using international means. I think Kerry's vision of American on the international stage is more in keeping with its exceptionalism than simply military muscle. As you can see, asymmetrical warfare has reduced the effectiveness of mere military power. To cling to one part of America's exceptionalism at the expense of others is precisely what we should be avoiding.

Finally, to address your questions.
1) I think, in contrast to Bush, you're right to say that it is a different world view. However, given that Obama had books out about what he'd do, this comes as no surprise to those that investigated him. I would suggest that, instead of relying on media (main stream or otherwise), you investigate candidates on your own.

2) Internationalism and foreign policy will likely be a very small subscript in the 2012 campaign. Overwhelmingly, the topic of discussion will be the economy. I think that Obama's internationalism is a good thing, as I have chosen to frame it as an exercise of America's exceptionalism, a view that you (from what I gather) do not share.

Look forward to your response.

[edit]

I realize I sidestepped your question of sovereignty all together. Here let me articulate how I see this interaction. The US (or any country really) will remain sovereign simply because they control the extent to which they will participate in international regimes (again, the paradox of international law). Also, I see this argument parallel to the question of state sovereignty and international markets. In the end, such international organs give new avenues of sovereign power to countries while mediating other sovereign powers. I don't necessarily see this as a retreat of the state, but rather the constitution of a new kind of sovereign power. The argument is based on the fact that the paradox of international law exists, and the US (or any country) would be able to dictate the terms in which they "erode" their own sovereignty. So while, on the surface, you are correct in that there is an encroachment of sovereignty, the reality is more complicated than you care to admit.

At the end of the day, international governance is still rooted in a state system, and so these states will retain vital sovereign functions that will never be given up to the extent that you seem to extrapolate. In other words, it's not quite as gloomy as you think it will be.

Welcome to the board.
Nicely written, and well considered. Hope there will be more such posts.
You and I have enough disagreements that I look forward to future jousts!
Will send your first rep as soon as I write this....

1. "...Americans that have been leading international norms for decades..."
This would require, and deserve, a book-length response, but let me simply say, for the time being, that it is incorrect to use the term 'Americans' as you have, and imply some monolithic view... Instead, there is considerable disagreement between the modern liberal, progressive view, and that of classical liberals, conservatives.
Here I would like to interpose the damage (you see my position) of Woodrow Wilson, the progenitor of the first fascist regime.
So, American inititatives depend on which 'Americans...'

2. We mostly agree on the UN...except for " [Israel] is the biggest violator of sanctions in the UN" which hardly makes sense as that is the only nation they choose to sanction. An exaggeration...but not much.
Along the lines of the OP, the UN has resolved in opposition to free speech, as we understand the term, and the Obama administration goes right along.

3. "Obama is doing is rightfully taking the responsibility that we have has a country to lead the world..."
It seems you haven't been paying attention. No, he is compromising American values in accepting 'international norms.'

4. "Obama had books out about what he'd do,"
Good one!
Some of us, those on the right, knew. And, daily, are proven correct. A major topic of threads on the USMB is the inequity of the main stream media.
Had they done the job they should have, this man would not have been our President.

5. "there is an encroachment of sovereignty, the reality is more complicated than you care to admit."


One can see that it is possible to lose sovereignty quickly. Consider the European Union. It began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.

a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!

b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!

c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.

d. Neither does the EU have a constitution, nor does the EU have an army or police force for common control of its borders. Thus it has political superiority over member states, but declines to be responsible for its defense. Inherent in this idea of transcending nation-states is the idea that defense is unimportant.

6. When we consider the abrupt changes in Europe, we should be concerned about the lack of consensus in our own country regarding
the importance of constitutional sovereignty.

a. Had we ratified the Kyoto Protocol we would have delegated the authority over huge areas of public policy to international authorities, i.e. the lost of constitutional treaty making powers. But the Obama administration is aiming to negotiate a new treaty along those lines.

b. There is the thinking that human rights law transcends the laws of particular countries, even those pertaining to national defense. But who should set the standards- especially against terrorists?

c. People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty- such as defense and protection of rights, without constitutional discipline, without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, we will be safe. Sounds as good as incantations and witchcraft.
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C.

 

[Desol]

Welcome to the board.
Nicely written, and well considered. Hope there will be more such posts.
You and I have enough disagreements that I look forward to future jousts!
Will send your first rep as soon as I write this....

1. "...Americans that have been leading international norms for decades..."
This would require, and deserve, a book-length response, but let me simply say, for the time being, that it is incorrect to use the term 'Americans' as you have, and imply some monolithic view... Instead, there is considerable disagreement between the modern liberal, progressive view, and that of classical liberals, conservatives.
Here I would live to interpose the damage (you see my position) of Woodrow Wilson, the progenitor of the first fascist regime.
So, American inititatives depend on which 'Americans...'

2. We mostly agree on the UN...except for " [Israel] is the biggest violator of sanctions in the UN" which hardly makes sense as that is the only nation they choose to sanction. An exaggeration...but not much.
Along the lines of the OP, the UN has resolved in opposition to free speech, as we understand the term, and the Obama administration goes right along.

3. "Obama is doing is rightfully taking the responsibility that we have has a country to lead the world..."
It seems you haven't been paying attention. No, he is compromising American values in accepting 'international norms.'

4. "Obama had books out about what he'd do,"
Good one!
Some of us, those on the right, knew. And, daily, are proven correct. A major topic of threads on the USMB is the inequity of the main stream media.
Had they done the job they should have, this man would not have been our President.

5. "there is an encroachment of sovereignty, the reality is more complicated than you care to admit."


One can see that it is possible to lose sovereignty quickly. Consider the European Union. It began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.

a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!

b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!

c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.

d. Neither does the EU have a constitution, nor does the EU have an army or police force for common control of its borders. Thus it has political superiority over member states, but declines to be responsible for its defense. Inherent in this idea of transcending nation-states is the idea that defense is unimportant.

6. When we consider the abrupt changes in Europe, we should be concerned about the lack of consensus in our own country regarding
the importance of constitutional sovereignty.

a. Had we ratified the Kyoto Protocol we would have delegated the authority over huge areas of public policy to international authorities, i.e. the lost of constitutional treaty making powers. But the Obama administration is aiming to negotiate a new treaty along those lines.

b. There is the thinking that human rights law transcends the laws of particular countries, even those pertaining to national defense. But who should set the standards- especially against terrorists?

c. People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty- such as defense and protection of rights, without constitutional discipline, without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, we will be safe. Sounds as good as incantations and witchcraft.
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C.

Re #1, you are right to point out that there are contrary movements in the United States when it comes to foreign policy. But when I say "Americans have been leading" I am simply referring to the fact that American leaders have been leading the norms brigade for a long time. Your point, while valid, doesn't necessarily refute the fact that the United States has been at the forefront of international norms. Your language suggests that you disagree with these leaders, but they are still your leaders, and are American.

Re #2, I'd say that sanctions are issued when there is a need for them. By that logic, that the UN has "chosen to only target Israel" as you put it, makes sense. If they need to be checked the most, they will be. I believe you have the causality mucked up. An auxillary point, but one that I am actually interested in, and I hope I ask it in a neutral tone. Why is it that certain political groups will support Israel unwaveringly? Looking at their record, it certainly isn't spotless, as many supporters seem to suggest.

Re #3, American values is a subjective term, and so it's not worth arguing over. I believe that international norms have for the most part, stemmed from similar American values. The right to free speech, freedom of association, etc, have lead to the development of international human rights regimes. I don't think human rights is particularly anti-American.

Re #4, I think reliance on the main stream media as a true fifth estate is a folly. you're right in that media largely failed. However, I'd point to the issue of WMDs and Iraq and draw the same conclusion. You can pick and choose, but the fact is media fails us on both sides of the coin. I agree that main stream media fails, but for you to cherry pick situations just makes the polarization worse.

Re #5, The case of the European Union is a good example of what I am actually talking about. You point to EU court decisions, yet fail to recognize that the paradox of international laws applies. The 2008 financial crisis and following solvency crisis serve to illustrate that the EU, in fact, behaves as a bunch of individual states, and no so much as a federal entity. Even the monetary union aspect of the EU is under threat from the recent solvency crisis. Greece has refused the EU's directive to restructure their debt. Additionally, I would point you to the French expulsion of gypsies in response to your point C. Another point is their response to Libya, and the fact that Germany abstained. Your point D is exactly the reason the EU is a good example of why the EU doesn't erode sovereignty to the degree you want to claim. Certainly, the EU's charter sets up normative standards of behaviour, but the question is whether theory meets reality. You seem to claim the worst possible scenario according to theory while ignoring the reality of the situation. This disconnect between theory and ideals on one hand against the reality on the other hand serves to illustrate my point that sovereignty is ultimately in the hands of the state.

Re #6a, The US Congress would have had been bound to the Kyoto Protocol's goals. However, there is not takeover of power. Canada is a good example. We ratified Kyoto under the Chretien majority government, but have failed to live up to the goals of the treaty. In fact, we have been disparaged at international climate conferences for our failure to live up tot he treaty. If there is an "international takeover" as you seem to suggest, would Canada not be in the situation it finds itself? The fact is, the state in question (ie, the US Congress) does not lose sovereignty, but they are simply bound to the terms that they agree to. In fact, Canada is again a good case of this. We will not be meeting the treaty requirements we agreed to. We will suffer some penalties (mostly monetary) and have already lost our normative power on the world stage when it comes to climate issues. However, the UN Climate Commission is in no way "in charge" of anything in Canada. Our House of Commons still runs everything.

Re #6b, the thinking you refer to does not exist. The article you are interested in is the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which produced a commission report entitled "The Responsibility to Protect." I actually have written quite a bit about R2P on my own blog, and if you want to get into it, we can in a separate topic, but suffice to say, R2P defines sovereignty as a responsibility in which the sovereign power must keep its citizens safe. There is no mechanism to usurp national defence.

Re #6c, The US would retain those sovereign powers that you outlined. The US would also retain its own domestic justice system. Where is it that you get the idea that international organizations are some how interested in running the domestic matters of a state? This is completely the wrong interpretation of the purpose of these organs. International organizations such as the UN are meant to mediate international political issues. Suffice to say, the UN and EU are designed to solve collective action problems on the international or regional political stage. They are not designed to become some sort of supra-federal government, though I will admit there are those that lean towards this interpretation. While your quote may be from someone who has a law degree, it is simply opinion (much like what I am typing right now). Again, I don't see the consequence of international governance in the same way.

 

[Dot Com]

NWO/ICC is the Right's bugaboo. Funny as GHWB supported it

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g]YouTube - ‪George Bush New World Order‬‏[/ame]​

 

[Chris]

Pamela Geller, in her book “The Post-American Presidency,” has some interesting perceptins as to the Obama antipathy to American sovereignty.

1. This President is clearly in favor of giving up American sovereignty in favor of the primacy of international law, i.e., regulations on climate change, gun control, free speech (including the Internet), accession to the replacement of the dollar as the basic international currency.

a. “Since the founding of our nation, the United States has championed international law…Promoting strong international norms helps us advance many interests, including non-proliferation, free and fair trade, a clean environment, and protecting our troops in wartime. Respect for international legal norms also plays a vital role in fighting terrorism.”The American Society of International Law 2008 - Barack Obama Survey

b. “A major problem for the United States at the United Nations is what is known as ‘norming.” “Norming” is the idea that the U.S. should base its decisions on some kind of international consensus, rather than making its decisions as a constitutional democracy. It is a way in which the Europeans and their left-wing friends here and elsewhere try and constrain U.S. sovereignty. The fact is that we’re sitting with a majority of countries that have no traditions or understanding of liberty.” https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=04

c. For those who fail to see American exceptionalism, that America has always been a leader and a light to the world, of course, accepting international norms is acceptable, even desirable.

2. President Bush had boycotted the UN Human Rights Council due to its endless demonization of Israel, and its willful blindness to human-rights violations in Islamic countries, i.e., Sudan among others.

a. “The 47-nation body has condemned Israel in 80% of its country censures, in 20 of 25 resolutions. The other 5 texts criticized North Korea once, and Myanmar four times. The Council has ignored the UN’s other 189 countries, including the world's worst abusers. While Darfur was addressed several times, these resolutions were non-condemnatory, often praising Sudan for "cooperation." Human Rights Council - UN Watch

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

3. In March 2009, the Obama administration dropped the term “enemy combatant” for prisoners at Gitmo, and instead adopted international laws of war. Eric Holder announced: “As we work towards developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law."

a. Not American law, …international law. Norming. The Justice Department announced proudly that it’s new policy “draws on the international laws of war to inform the statutory authority conferred by Congress.” Welcome to the United States Department of Justice

b. How about subjecting Americans to international law? “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed "great regret" in August that the U.S. is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This has fueled speculation that the Obama administration may reverse another Bush policy and sign up for what could lead to the trial of Americans for war crimes in The Hague.” Daniel Schwammenthal: Prosecuting American 'War Crimes' - WSJ.com
Note: President Bush refused to accept jurisdiction of the ICC.

c. The Obama Administration has not announced a comprehensive US policy toward the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, several actions and statements by the Administration indicate elements of such a policy,while other areas remain unclear. April 18, 2011 http://www.amicc.org/docs/ObamaPolicy.pdf

4. If recollection serves, didn't Kerry lose support when he suggested that the US should look to international consensus..."Kerry starts with a
concept of America’s role in the world that places much more weight on diplomacy,
consensus-building, and the role of international institutions than the current
administration."http://www.observerindia.com/cms/export/orfonline/modules/orfmonitor/attachments/em041004_1163572150422.pdf

Did American suddenly change, or is this another example of the MSM hiding a candidates true motivations?

And how will Americans view Obama 'internationalism' in 2012?

Ask Pakistan about Obama "giving up our sovereignty."

And ask the Somali pirates as well....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Welcome to the board.
Nicely written, and well considered. Hope there will be more such posts.
You and I have enough disagreements that I look forward to future jousts!
Will send your first rep as soon as I write this....

1. "...Americans that have been leading international norms for decades..."
This would require, and deserve, a book-length response, but let me simply say, for the time being, that it is incorrect to use the term 'Americans' as you have, and imply some monolithic view... Instead, there is considerable disagreement between the modern liberal, progressive view, and that of classical liberals, conservatives.
Here I would live to interpose the damage (you see my position) of Woodrow Wilson, the progenitor of the first fascist regime.
So, American inititatives depend on which 'Americans...'

2. We mostly agree on the UN...except for " [Israel] is the biggest violator of sanctions in the UN" which hardly makes sense as that is the only nation they choose to sanction. An exaggeration...but not much.
Along the lines of the OP, the UN has resolved in opposition to free speech, as we understand the term, and the Obama administration goes right along.

3. "Obama is doing is rightfully taking the responsibility that we have has a country to lead the world..."
It seems you haven't been paying attention. No, he is compromising American values in accepting 'international norms.'

4. "Obama had books out about what he'd do,"
Good one!
Some of us, those on the right, knew. And, daily, are proven correct. A major topic of threads on the USMB is the inequity of the main stream media.
Had they done the job they should have, this man would not have been our President.

5. "there is an encroachment of sovereignty, the reality is more complicated than you care to admit."


One can see that it is possible to lose sovereignty quickly. Consider the European Union. It began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.

a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!

b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!

c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.

d. Neither does the EU have a constitution, nor does the EU have an army or police force for common control of its borders. Thus it has political superiority over member states, but declines to be responsible for its defense. Inherent in this idea of transcending nation-states is the idea that defense is unimportant.

6. When we consider the abrupt changes in Europe, we should be concerned about the lack of consensus in our own country regarding
the importance of constitutional sovereignty.

a. Had we ratified the Kyoto Protocol we would have delegated the authority over huge areas of public policy to international authorities, i.e. the lost of constitutional treaty making powers. But the Obama administration is aiming to negotiate a new treaty along those lines.

b. There is the thinking that human rights law transcends the laws of particular countries, even those pertaining to national defense. But who should set the standards- especially against terrorists?

c. People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty- such as defense and protection of rights, without constitutional discipline, without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, we will be safe. Sounds as good as incantations and witchcraft.
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C.

Re #1, you are right to point out that there are contrary movements in the United States when it comes to foreign policy. But when I say "Americans have been leading" I am simply referring to the fact that American leaders have been leading the norms brigade for a long time. Your point, while valid, doesn't necessarily refute the fact that the United States has been at the forefront of international norms. Your language suggests that you disagree with these leaders, but they are still your leaders, and are American.

Re #2, I'd say that sanctions are issued when there is a need for them. By that logic, that the UN has "chosen to only target Israel" as you put it, makes sense. If they need to be checked the most, they will be. I believe you have the causality mucked up. An auxillary point, but one that I am actually interested in, and I hope I ask it in a neutral tone. Why is it that certain political groups will support Israel unwaveringly? Looking at their record, it certainly isn't spotless, as many supporters seem to suggest.

Re #3, American values is a subjective term, and so it's not worth arguing over. I believe that international norms have for the most part, stemmed from similar American values. The right to free speech, freedom of association, etc, have lead to the development of international human rights regimes. I don't think human rights is particularly anti-American.

Re #4, I think reliance on the main stream media as a true fifth estate is a folly. you're right in that media largely failed. However, I'd point to the issue of WMDs and Iraq and draw the same conclusion. You can pick and choose, but the fact is media fails us on both sides of the coin. I agree that main stream media fails, but for you to cherry pick situations just makes the polarization worse.

Re #5, The case of the European Union is a good example of what I am actually talking about. You point to EU court decisions, yet fail to recognize that the paradox of international laws applies. The 2008 financial crisis and following solvency crisis serve to illustrate that the EU, in fact, behaves as a bunch of individual states, and no so much as a federal entity. Even the monetary union aspect of the EU is under threat from the recent solvency crisis. Greece has refused the EU's directive to restructure their debt. Additionally, I would point you to the French expulsion of gypsies in response to your point C. Another point is their response to Libya, and the fact that Germany abstained. Your point D is exactly the reason the EU is a good example of why the EU doesn't erode sovereignty to the degree you want to claim. Certainly, the EU's charter sets up normative standards of behaviour, but the question is whether theory meets reality. You seem to claim the worst possible scenario according to theory while ignoring the reality of the situation. This disconnect between theory and ideals on one hand against the reality on the other hand serves to illustrate my point that sovereignty is ultimately in the hands of the state.

Re #6a, The US Congress would have had been bound to the Kyoto Protocol's goals. However, there is not takeover of power. Canada is a good example. We ratified Kyoto under the Chretien majority government, but have failed to live up to the goals of the treaty. In fact, we have been disparaged at international climate conferences for our failure to live up tot he treaty. If there is an "international takeover" as you seem to suggest, would Canada not be in the situation it finds itself? The fact is, the state in question (ie, the US Congress) does not lose sovereignty, but they are simply bound to the terms that they agree to. In fact, Canada is again a good case of this. We will not be meeting the treaty requirements we agreed to. We will suffer some penalties (mostly monetary) and have already lost our normative power on the world stage when it comes to climate issues. However, the UN Climate Commission is in no way "in charge" of anything in Canada. Our House of Commons still runs everything.

Re #6b, the thinking you refer to does not exist. The article you are interested in is the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which produced a commission report entitled "The Responsibility to Protect." I actually have written quite a bit about R2P on my own blog, and if you want to get into it, we can in a separate topic, but suffice to say, R2P defines sovereignty as a responsibility in which the sovereign power must keep its citizens safe. There is no mechanism to usurp national defence.

Re #6c, The US would retain those sovereign powers that you outlined. The US would also retain its own domestic justice system. Where is it that you get the idea that international organizations are some how interested in running the domestic matters of a state? This is completely the wrong interpretation of the purpose of these organs. International organizations such as the UN are meant to mediate international political issues. Suffice to say, the UN and EU are designed to solve collective action problems on the international or regional political stage. They are not designed to become some sort of supra-federal government, though I will admit there are those that lean towards this interpretation. While your quote may be from someone who has a law degree, it is simply opinion (much like what I am typing right now). Again, I don't see the consequence of international governance in the same way.

#2 No basis in reality. Follow the news of stonings, inhuman acts around the world, and the UN singles out Israel. The UN has become a satire of itself.
#4 It's a question of preponderance...the main stream is left wing.
#5 Also doesn't follow. Here in the, a federal republic, there are states that state outright that they will not follow the directions and laws of the federal government. Does not indicate that the states actually have sovereignty that they were promised. See ObamaCare.
#6 Glad you bring up R2P. It combines several aspects we have been discussing.

1. You may find a well intentioned idea, and claim that my view is a worst case senario. And it may be not a bad idea….unless the unforeseen consequences are actually a well-laid trap.

2. The Doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect,” (RtoP) was accepted by the 2005World Summit, and the 2006 Security Council of the UN. The basic ideas are:

a. A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities).
b. The international community has a responsibility to assist peacefully.
c. The international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.

3. Picture Bosnia, or Rwanda or Libya….what could be bad?

4. Well, what if the real intentions behind the RtoP was to allow certain forces a ‘moral’ right to ‘interfere’ in the National Sovereignty of a nation they didn’t care for. Say…oh, I don’t know….the United States? Or Israel?

5. “Advocates of RtoP claim that only occasions where the international community will intervene on a State without its consent is when the state is either allowing mass atrocities to occur, or is committing them, in which case the State is no longer upholding its responsibilities as a sovereign.” Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6. Now, let’s say that the UN decides to declare Palestine to be a state…What a coincidence! That was the news recently! Declaring An Independent Palestinian State - Uncommon Thought Journal

a. And, what if “Gaza terrorists have pummeled Israel with over 120 rockets in the past few days, and now the Arab League is calling for the UN to establish a no-fly zone to shield Gaza…” Arab League Wants No-Fly Zone in Gaza « Commentary Magazine

b. Wouldn’t it be strange if Arab League Chief Amr Mussa had helped write the RtoP???? He did. About the Commission : International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty

c. And look who else helped out: Dr. Hanan Ashrawi -- former Cabinet Minister of the Palestinian National Authority. Ibid.

7. “Philanthropist billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the global organization that promotes the military doctrine used by the Obama administration to justify the recent airstrikes targeting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. Also, the Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

Power has been a champion of the doctrine and is, herself, deeply tied to the doctrine's founder. According to reports, Power was instrumental in convincing Obama to act against Libya.

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine has been described by its founders and proponents, including Soros, as promoting global governance while allowing the international community to penetrate a nation state's borders under certain conditions.” http://nation.foxnews.com/george-soros/2011/03/23/soros-fingerprints-libya-bombingExactly the direction that the Left is taking us. And this is why we should be having this kind of discussion!

Hopefully there will be a right-thinking pol who will bring America back from the precipice.

 

[Dot Com]

Here we go AGAIN w/ Soros ZZZzzz. So, you must be against the Citizens United ruling then right? If you're concerned about unlimited contributions you should be. I'm guessing that the ruling further empowered Soros. What say you?

Why don't "you people" ask for a Soros sub-forum