Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What we have here is the UN positioning itself to become a Governmental entity sovereign unto itself and answers to no other nation, but all other nations answer to it. it's not hard to tell.
UN is an international treaty. The US is bound to it, for being a part of it. Get a clue (including your poor understanding of the US Constitution).
After the bloodshed and destruction of World War II, the victorious Allied states pledged that history would not repeat itself and, toward that end, agreed to establish a new global organization that would be set up with the goal of preserving peace among nations. In 1945, at the San Francisco Conference, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China jointly agreed upon the terms for the charter of what would soon thereafter become the United Nations. Signed by 51 states, the charter formally entered into force on October 24, 1945.
The U.N. was unlike its predecessor, the League of Nations, in one crucial respect: While the league had no enforcement powers, the U.N. was set up to ensure that its mandates would be followed. Specifically, the charter laid out a collective security system through which the Security Council-made up of the leading powers of the United Kingdom, China, France, the U.S.S.R., and the United States-could determine when a threat to or breach of international peace and security had occurred and, to remedy the situation, impose binding measures (economic, military, or other) against the offending state.
Soon after the U.N. came into effect, the Cold War broke out. For several decades, the Security Council was plagued by infighting between the U.S.S.R. and the United States-each vetoing those resolutions supported by the other. As a result, the enforcement mechanisms of the Security Council were not practically available. This all changed when the Cold War came to a close.
The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States. Under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, treaties-of which the U.N. Charter is one-are considered the supreme law of the land. Article 103 of the U.N. Charter makes clear that the charter supercedes all other conflicting treaties. It says: "In the event of conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail."
---
All that means is any treaty we sign arising from discussions at the UN is binding, because our Constitution states than any treaties are part of our law.
How again is this an issue? The United States has always been a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and we've signed many treaties put forth by foreign nations.
And by the way, international law is unenforceable. Just because we verbally agree to it based on our constitution, doesn't mean it won't be violated. Bush violated the UN Declaration on Human Rights and the Geneva Convention.
All that means is any treaty we sign arising from discussions at the UN is binding, because our Constitution states than any treaties are part of our law.
How again is this an issue? The United States has always been a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and we've signed many treaties put forth by foreign nations.
And by the way, international law is unenforceable. Just because we verbally agree to it based on our constitution, doesn't mean it won't be violated.
^Here's where we disagree. they are already destroying the Constitution starting with the Bill of Rights. It's the UN that needs us to banish our Constitution so theirs can put into effect. it's been happening incrementally since pres. D.Eisenhour...remember his speech on TV about the New World Order? He was talking about the UN. they will be the ones to institute it. do you understand?
Quote:
Bush violated the UN Declaration on Human Rights and the Geneva Convention.
He did. and Obama violated the US Constitution. they're all crooks. I agree.
this is comedy^ YOU say we are bound by it but Fiyero says we are not.
which one is it folks?
I haven't seen Fiyero's argument. I don't think he would disagree with me. But, what do you think? What does the US Constitution speak of international treaties? Is it mixed up with title, nobility and such? After all, that is an argument central to yours (which clearly is beyond stupid).
My whole arguement is that his move was Illegal and Unconstitutional. which is fact.
Just like the CEO of Pepsi can't be the CEO of Coke for a day.
It's Unconstitutional and illegal for the CEO of Pepsi to be CEO of Coke for a day? Really?
Obama chaired a meeting of the UN Security Council. And you are trying to meld this into some grand conspiracy plot you have concocted about the UN trying to take over our country.
You want to live in fear of the United Nations, then no one is going to stop you. But if you want to persuade the rest of us that your fear is rooted in any kind of reality, you're going to have to do much better than Obama chaired a meeting one day. Because it's not Unconstitutional or illegal. Obama is a citizen of the United States just like anyone else. He can chair a meeting at the local Elks Lodge, and he can chair a meeting at the UN Security Council without any conflict of interest at all.
I haven't seen Fiyero's argument. I don't think he would disagree with me. But, what do you think? What does the US Constitution speak of international treaties? Is it mixed up with title, nobility and such? After all, that is an argument central to yours (which clearly is beyond stupid).
My argument is on the legality of it, period. from post one. and it was Illegal and Unconstitutional. you people who claim to know the Constitution might need to read it a little more thoroughly. it's a reason not one of our presidents took the gavel until the likes of Slick Barry.
You should be asking yourself, why is he even bothering himself with that position when his time should be spent fixing this dag gone economy and not grandstanding and breaking laws in plain sight.
Reminds me of the snub-flight he took in AF1 over Manhattan after he got elected president.
It's Unconstitutional and illegal for the CEO of Pepsi to be CEO of Coke for a day? Really?
It's called making a comparison. have you seen it yet? have you seen the CEO of Pepsi take the seat of CEO at Coke for a day just of giggles and grins? sounds stupid don't it? it is stupid. and so is Obama chairing the UN Security council when his behind belongs in Washington taking care of US Business and not trying to grandstand for the UN
This thread is a great example as to why we need more education funding in America... not less.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
