Views of the US election from non-US folk

Bolding is my emphasis on your attention to detail and unclear thinking
Italics are my emphasis on your attempt to distort facts (see second quote at end)

Quote:

Clinton never accepted the treary because Congress said they were not going to ratify it. Clinton dumped it in Bush's lap. Heck why dont you run a copy up to capitol hill. Bush cannot make or break treaties with foreign powers only Congress has that authority. Every comment you made was nothing but I lie

[Freudian slip, dude?]

Quote:

From http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/ctbtsig.asp
President George H. W. Bush signed into law the unilateral declaration to forego full-scale nuclear weapons testing October 2, 1992. The United States signed the CTBT on September 24, 1996, the day it opened for signature, but the Senate dealt a severe blow to the near-term prospects for U.S. participation when it refused to provide its advice and consent October 13, 1999. The current Bush administration has refused to ask the Senate to reconsider the treaty but has said it will observe the moratorium.

Quote:

Your media is ran by who because apperantly your rights to true information did not make it into your constitution. You really believed the stuff you wrote it is sad really to see a citizen manipulated by his government. It must be like living in a prison. Do you get to pick your music or do they tell you what to listen to.

You got me dead to rights with these last points Cobalt. What can I say? My government does lie to me, constantly - the media is run by a monopoly that slavenly pushes it's political agenda and actively censors stories that conflict with it's agenda, or that criticise it. My government is run by a man called John Howard, who has his head firmly up your president's posterior and was recently re-elected using the same fearmongering tactics. Our media monopoly is run by a man called Rupert Murdoch. A traitorous lefty pinko if ever there was one.

Stop it, your killing me....

0 Replies

I still do not understand how you could be made to believe things you know could not be true. I mean you are far from an idiot and you live in a democratic system. You must be aware of the fact that your Prime Minister can not run around the world making state treaties. Certainly your Parliament approves those types of long term state agreements and no elected office holder has the ability to sign his countries rights away. For instance when your Prime Minister is at a summit and an agreement is reached and the standard photo op is set up where they sign who knows blank pages. You completely understand that that agreement goes to your Parliament and they and only they have the legal authority to authorize such long term state commitments. In fact you are more than aware that since your Prime Minister cannot make such agreements he certainly cannot break the agreement that he had no authority to make to start with.

We had a situation similar to that it was called the Kyoto treaty. This President of ours lets call him Clinton mislead other foreign leaders to believe he had the political power to shove the treaty through our Congress but it was a lie. Congress had no intention of passing or even discussing the treaty. So this Clinton guy lets the treaty languish for 5 months until he is out of office. The same Congress is there and still refuses to give the President the power to recieve the document for Congressional consideration. So since this poor guy has no authority to legally accept the documents is suddenly blamed for the desrtuction off the Worlds ecological system by governments that know its a lie and their citizens that can read and write AND DAMN WELL ARE SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW ITS A LIE.

0 Replies

Cobalt8

I don't know, who taught you what at law school and why.

However and a little bit different to your above, it is generally accepted that treaties are binding international agreements, not merely expressions of goodwill.

A treaty is similar to a contract, and operates between the nations that are parties to the treaty. Becoming a party to a treaty is a legal process which involves a series of steps.

A nation state usually signs an international treaty and later ratifies it.

Signing a treaty means that the state expresses an intention, in the future, to accept all the obligations arising under the treaty and in the meantime to refrain from doing anything inconsistent with these obligations.
However, the nation state is not immediately bound by the treaty. Ratifying a treaty means the nation state becomes a party to the treaty, one of the contracting states, and it is bound by t he treaty's obligations.

0 Replies

In reference to your "proof" of what I am not certain. Yes congress approves the treaty sends it to the President and he signs it or vetos it than it goes back to Congress and they over ride the veto if they so choose.

I think the part of the document you were refering to is:
The current Bush administration has refused to ask the Senate to reconsider the treaty but has said it will observe the moratorium.

This is a trick known as yes the agreement is being honored but there is no one to blame the agreement on. It happens when both the Congress and the President want the treaty but cannot take the political hit for sighning off on it.

Congress if faced to explain why it is being honored - "We wanted to kill it but the President REFUSED to let us consider it at which time I SWEAR I would of killed it so it is his fault.

The President - I wanted the treaty modified as you did leaving only section 3 in place but they swore they would kill the entire treaty, we had to have section 3 as you know so I was forced to hold it before final consideration was given killing section 3.

Now who's fault is it that there is a treaty in force that both sides deny they want.

0 Replies

Well I know little to zero about your governments handling of state agreements. I do know about them in the US, the founding fathers had been screwed over more than once by the King of England's ability to change state agreements. These agreements are solely the responsibility of the Congress and it is nailed down in half a dozen ways. The Congress has total control. It is close to impossible to modify them once they are law which is why they have more back doors in them than a whore house does. When the Constitution was being written these guys were drunk as ****. I mean every minute of every day. The liquor bills for the event were paid for by the treasury these old bar tabs exist today. There is speculation that some of these impossible situations in the constitution is the result of a few passing out and the decision was made to call it a day and we guess they can figure it out later.

0 Replies

Walter - your OWN law school must surely have taught YOU to refer to the original constitution of each country insofar as signature and ratification of international treaties. In the US constitution that is known as the "advice and consent" clause. The US Senate NEVER consented - and is not likely to do so in the foreseeable future - so signature by the President alone means the treaty is dead letter.

Really it's unlike you to argue in complete disregard of the facts!

0 Replies

Oh yeah, and the process can start at either end (President or Senate) but BOTH are needed for a treaty to be considered binding. Once the treaty is signed AND ratified, of course, it not only the law of the land it also SUPERSEDES all other law - obviously, otherwise it could be changed unilaterally.

The particular (Kyoto) boondoggle you mention isn't even on the list of items to be considered or discussed by the Senate:
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/d_three_sections_with_teasers/treaties.htm

Hope that settles it.

0 Replies

Thanks I was not sure on that point so I just guessed.

0 Replies

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/11/06/toon_0711_gallery__550x401,0.jpg

0 Replies

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,1658,393873,00.jpg

0 Replies

msolga those are pure classic Very Happy

0 Replies

Hingehead - kindly re-read Walter's, Cobalt's and my comments on the Kyoto Treaty. Walter is assuming that the signature by the then president was made in good faith, but if you also look up the Senate.gov link posted above you'll see that

(1) The Senate never even received from the then President that treaty for consideration (a necessary step prior to "advice and consent") and that, further,

(2) Not a single one of the many Democratic Senators saw fit to introduce the text of that treaty to the relevant Senate Committee as prelude to a discussion and vote by the full Senate.

Even those lacking Constitutional scholarship among us realize that if the then President attached any meaning to his word (though nobody else does, so why should he?) he would have sent on the treaty text to the Senate the very day he signed it AND that if the Democratic party Senators were blind to that pro-Chinese-and-Indian scam they would at least have added it to the Senate's agenda.

Hope that clears up the confusion on that point.

0 Replies

Hoft - I never even mentioned Kyoto, I knew it had never been ratified by the US, there was just an assumption that's what I was talking about. You'll see from looking at my posts that I never mentioned a treaty by name until he/she/it suddenly came out in defence of Bush's treaty actions. In fact Cobalt didn't mention a treaty name either. Then I just picked one that I knew he'd walked away from early in his first term, I'm sure there's a least one other but I didn't feel like doing the research.

At least Cobalt acknowledged that this particular thread is not about what Americans think about America. Although I can appreciate your obvious enthusiasm about your subject (US constitutional law) are I think we've hijacked this discussion long enough.

0 Replies

Thanks, Hingehead, and for the record: I'm not an expert in constitutional law. See you around.

0 Replies

Hi Hoft

As many will know I can be a pedant, but for the record - I never said you were an expert, I merely condemned you as an enthusiast.

I consider myself a dilettante (an enthusiast with less knowledge and spread way too thin)

0 Replies

Well hingehead it seems you are attempting a classic Bill "Plausible Deniability" Clinton. This all started in our discussion of President Bush and your dislike for him at which point you listed a literary of false unsubstantiated biased lies. Out of your list I picked one, your comments on how Bush broke the Kyoto Treaty. It is a lie you accepted which you knew was untrue that STARTED all of this than you run back on and claim Kyoto Kyoto never knew her. Well that would be fine in the normal liberal left dream land but you wrote it I called you on it because you told a lie you should of known was a lie for the sole point of demagoguery. Than I was proved correct ... that verdict stands sir

0 Replies

Ok I looked back you said "When Bush got in office the first thing he did was break the International treaty." Since the only treaty I know of that Bush dealt with in the first 18 months in office was the Kyoto. In fact as I recall, on the second week in office, he had to deal with the Clinton Kyoto treaty left over when Clinton signed a treaty that the congress never advised him to obtain in the first place. Therefore, the Congress never placed what they never asked for under consideration. Than Bush was wrongly blamed for breaking a treaty that:
1. The US Government never authorized
2. The Congress never requested the advice from the Executive Branch.
3. Clinton never started the pre-impact studies or long term effects on national security studies because Congress never received a request to fund those studies.
4. Congress never had nor would place the treaty under consideration because technically since Congress had no input there was no treaty to even consider.

So when Bush was asked to sign it or whatever the world expected to happen next the Congress told him we do not know a thing about it. If the only Branch of the US Government that has the authority to make Treaties takes the position, as they legally could, that they know nothing, well!!!

The only thing left I would like to know is who paid for Clinton to be at the signing ceremony. It could not have been submitted to the treasury because the Government never authorized or knew a thing about it. My guess is the State Department picked up the tab and submitted it to the treasury as far away luncheon. LOL

hingehead when you posted I am Anti-Bush ... Anti-Bush he got into office and the first thing he did was break the international treaty. If not Kyoto (the only one there was) which treaty were you referring to.

0 Replies

Accepted discussion concluded.

0 Replies

In a pig's ear

Once again I will use bold to highlight your obvious disregard for detail, clear thinking and fact. PEDANT ALERT!

Cobalt8 wrote:

Well hingehead it seems you are attempting a classic Bill "Plausible Deniability" Clinton [Hinge says: How do you attempt a person? Nouns and verbs are such tricky things].

This all started in our discussion of President Bush and your dislike for him [Hinge says: actually it started because I accepted your apology and expressed a dislike for your views, at which point you promptly ignored what you were apologising for (posting in the wrong forum) and started going scattergun]

at which point you listed a literary [Hinge says: LITANY! Damn I hope you talk better than you write because a job interview would be a nightmare]

of false unsubstantiated biased lies [WOW a quadruple negative. Maybe I should have stuck with false lies (truths?) or unbiased lies or unsubstantiated lies (substantiated lies are so much more effective)?].

Out of your list I picked one, your comments on how Bush broke the Kyoto Treaty [Hinge says: I said he broke treaties - I didn't say which ones, and I've since highlighted this fact, but, as has become abundantly clear to me, you don't read diddly of what I write, so this is more for all the lovely people of A2K who do].

It is a lie you accepted which you knew was untrue that STARTED all of this than you run back on and claim Kyoto Kyoto never knew her. [Hinge says: What the? Is English not your first language, are you drunk or do your thoughts get lost in translation somewhere between your brain and fingers? Read that out loud and tell me it makes sense.]

Well that would be fine in the normal liberal left dream land but you wrote it I called you on it because you told a lie you should of known was a lie for the sole point of demagoguery. Than I was proved correct ... that verdict stands sir [Hinge says: Ah, please see my last comment]

0 Replies

Cobalt8 wrote:

hingehead when you posted I am Anti-Bush ... Anti-Bush he got into office and the first thing he did was break the international treaty. If not Kyoto (the only one there was) which treaty were you referring to.

As I have now said at least three times I didn't mention any treaty by name, you assumed Kyoto, I've since named another in a discussion with Hoft.

Well here's another for example:

Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems
Signed by the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics May 26, 1972; entered into force October 3, 1972

1. Each Party undertakes to limit anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems and to adopt other measures in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty.

2. Each Party undertakes not to deploy ABM systems for a defense of the territory of its country and not to provide a base for such a defense, and not to deploy ABM systems for defense of an individual region except as provided for in Article III of this Treaty.
-- Article I

Bush a**holed with his plan for the satellite missile defence system.

For a more comprehensive, and deliciously pedantic, list of Bush failures in international cooperation have a look at

http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/laws.php#rogue

I await your return of serve....

0 Replies

Views of the US election from non-US folk

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know