Article 45.1

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Maybe if I punched a clock with the government I could spend my work day doing something other than the job I was hired for.

And maybe if you worked 6pm - 6am 7 days on and 7 days off, you'd have a lot of free time on your off week.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by insein
Itd be a sweet gig. Paycheck for surfing the web. I can dig it. Who says that? I forget.

I do occasionally surf the web while at work. It beats stareing at a CCD that is busy taking a 5 minute exposure. What you and Mt Biker apparenly don't realize is that scientific research takes a lot of patience, and often involves lots of time simply waiting for computers and instruments to complete their tasks before you can perform more work. Would you prefer I clock in and out every 3 minutes for the 30 seconds or so of adjustments and what not I need to make? Or perhaps we should just no pay people to do scientific research for the military, because often scientific research involves a lot of waiting around. We'll just expect our scientists to work 12 hour graveyards 7 days in a row for absolutely nothing.


If its any comfort to you, this job ends at the end of May. My next job will be as a grad student and teaching assistant at LSU where I will actually be expected to do a lot of my work as a teaching assistant off the clock at home (like every other teacher in the nation)

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by insein
Not only do i not take it personally, i don't take it realistically either. Ive created a thread where you can tell us what you would do to stop terrorism. Go respond.

I will as soon as I'm done with this one. I have, however, already mentioned some of the things I would do to fight terrorism. But I will be there as soon as I catch up in this rather insane thread.

However, I don't have to know how to fight terrorism to know invading a nation that is not a threat to us is no way to fight terrorism.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Reilly
Keep studying. You are partly right. A treaty does have the same status as any other federal law in the United States, save the Constitution, which clearly has primacy. However, even though a treaty may not be a criminal law that can be enforced by an outside tribunal, it still is a law for the purposes of the United States, and is to be followed inside the United States (its violations generally dealt with by U.S. courts unless the treaty itself confers jurisdiction eslewhere (i.e., WTO)). This does not however make it a criminal law. Yes, the president has the power to terminate a treaty without the approval of Congress, but no one has the authority to break a treaty. If one does so, one is technically violating the law of the U.S. (although there does have to be the political will to prosecute (not necessarily criminally) the case).

As for whether the President is violating the treaty, I think this is probably a very complicated question to which I don't have the foggiest of an answer. We clearly haven't terminated the treaty (and are probably violating it). However, there are surely the war powers doctrine, implicit rejection of section 45.1, sep. of powers arguments, etc. that would have to be considered.

Where in the Constitution does it say the President has the power to singlehandedly terminate a treaty?

Good point though, the other poster was trying to say the President could terminate the treaty, and even assuming that is right, the President has not issued an order to terminate the treaty.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Spidey - I hope you can stand by that statement because I think you have insulted alot of people here tonight! but hey what do I know,right?

The only reason one would feel personally insulted by me is if one actually cared what I thought.


I never knew you cared guys!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by insein
Here's an anolgy you can understand maybe.

Spiderman purposely tries to stop Doc Oc from carrying out a plot to launch weapons on the city. He is hold up in a building in a populated part of town. Spiderman obviously doesnt want to hurt any civilians. In fact he usualy goes out of his way to not hurt them. Spiderman has explosive web charges set up to attack Doc Oc's base. He shoots web cannons at the base. IT blows a whole clean into the base, but the debree scatters and injuries civilians that were near the base. Spiderman continues onward destroying Doc Oc's base until Octupus is stopped. When it is over he finds that his actions have caused major damage to the surrounding area and have injured numerous people. But Doc oc is stopped and can no longer kill or threaten to kill numerous other people. Should spiderman be arrested?

OK, I don't even have to read the whole thing (though I did), the analogy breaks down in the first sentence. Saddam Hussein did not have a plot to lauch weaspons, enough said.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by insein
BTW, i notice how you backed away from your response on calling america a facist country. YUou never did answer me. Would you be here if this were true facism?

BTW, I notice I've nevered called America a fascist country. Perhaps one of our leaders has fascist tendencies, but I have never called America a fascist country. Since you asked your question in response to something I never said, I don't have to answer it.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Where in the Constitution does it say the President has the power to singlehandedly terminate a treaty?

Good point though, the other poster was trying to say the President could terminate the treaty, and even assuming that is right, the President has not issued an order to terminate the treaty.

It doesn't say it in the Constitution. The Supreme Court decided it in Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979). The decision had several opinions, but the authority opinion appeared to rest on the President's authority in the conduct of our foreign relations. However, in that case, the President withdrew from the treaty pursuant to the terms of the treaty itself. It wasn't a question of breaking the treaty, but the president's authority to terminate it.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Reilly
It doesn't say it in the Constitution. The Supreme Court decided it in Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979). The decision had several opinions, but the authority opinion appeared to rest on the President's authority in the conduct of our foreign relations. However, in that case, the President withdrew from the treaty pursuant to the terms of the treaty itself. It wasn't a question of breaking the treaty, but the president's authority to terminate it.

Wow, real facts. Most of the people who reply to me don't have many of those. Thanks!

OK then, so are you saying that the President may only singlehandedly withdraw from a treaty if he withdraws from it pursuant to the treaty itself? Did the courts make the answer to that clear? Do the Geneva Conventions provide a mechanism to do this?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
So Spidey, you are ready to gaurantee that there is no way that there are WMD's in Iraq? just because they have not been found yet doe's not mean that they never existed! Why do you think Sadaam defied the UN for 12 years? Why could they not account for all the Anthrax,and VX gas?

#1 No. But it doesn't look like we're going to find anything. Unfortunately, you can't prove a negative, so I can't prove we won't find WMD

#2 The mere fact that Hussein had WMD in the past does not mean he had them when we invaded.

#3 The explanation to that is simple, but most neocons like yourself don't buy it because it doesn't support your worldview. In a regime like Saddam's, the people making the WMD, back when they were actually making them, are being pressured to produce as much as possible. Since Hussein cannot personally inspect every single weapons sight in Iraq, it would have been possible for the people making the WMD to lie about how much was actually produced, saving their jobs (and possibly their lives) and making Hussein happy at the same time. Such is to be expected in government's similar to Hussein's.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
We definitely care about people accusing the US of a nation of Killers, to say that we care about you personally may be pushing it a little!

I never said we were a nation of killers. So do you care about me now?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Well then I think it is fair to say that it was better to disarm him ourselves then to wait and see if had had any form of WMD's!

Still if they are never found, this was the right thing to do as far as I am concerned so go and call me a warmonger or whatever you like! I know I am happy knowing that this man is no longer in power!

How can you disarm someone if you are unsure as to whether or not he is armed?

Listen, I understand your reasoning, but it is based on the idea that it is acceptable to fight preventative wars. It is not. It is certainly unAmerican and certainly unChristian. America has at no point in her history ever fought a war with the sole purpose being to prevent a war until now. The very idea is silly, its like getting yourself in a fight to avoid getting yourself in a fight. STARTING wars is wrong, period. If we would have held off on invading Iraq, sure, maybe we would have had to fight a war with Iraq someday in some future time. But invading Iraq as a preventative measure guarantees we will fight a war in Iraq. Now would you like option a) maybe a war or b) definitely a war? I pick a. That's just me, I don't like war, I think it should be avoided at all costs.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
The verdict is still out on this one yet Spidey! It will take more time then this!

You're not the kind of girl that likes to take it fast, are you?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
This sure was preventative! Saddam had evry chance in the past 12 years to prvent it!

Shrub himself said he would still have invaded Iraq even if he knew Saddam had no WMD, so I fail to see what Saddam could have done to prevent it.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Well you tell that to the next victims of terrorism! Obviously you are anti - war, that does not make us warmongers because we like to see the trash taken out!

What for? What does terrorism have to do with invading Iraq?

If you're not anti-war, you're pro-war.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
I see you still have'nt quite figured out how it is that you want to get your point across! This is the kind of statement that I will overlook once, and only once!!

Jeez lighten up, take a joke.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Hmmm, guess you have not seen the atrocities that this man has comitted!

Hmmm, I guess you like to talk about your other justifications for war as soon as it looks like the one we're talking about isn't working out to well for you.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Gee I wonder? unaacounted for Anthrax, unaccounted for Vx poison! were do you think it all went? wanna take a chance and hope that it has not fallen into the hand of terrorists? I think it has been well documented that there lies a connection between Iraq and terrorism!

Terrorism, yes, the terrorists responsible for attacking America, no.

I've already provided a possible explanation for the missing anthrax.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
I happen to take joke's very well! Unfortunately you have not yet learned the way of doing so!

The way of telling jokes or taking them?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Quite senseless spidey! what are you talking about?

I'm talking about the way you start talking about atrocities everytime I show you WMD wasn't a good reason and about WMD everytime I show you Bush didn't give a damn about the atrocities.