[fastpat]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Not only did the UN fail to enforce the 16 resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein, but they were complicit in the criminal enterprise that was the "oil for food" scandal. We, certainly, are not obligated to adhere to a treaty when that partner entity was acting criminally or less importantly, impotently.

Not relevant. Iraq's violation of UN resolutions is between the UN and Iraq; the US government has no authority from the US Constitution nor US law which authorizes enforcement of UN resolutions outside the UN. Israel has violation over 60 UN resolutions, care to invade them next? Based on your assertions, that would have to happen. However, there is nothing in US law, nor I'm happy to say, in American common law which is more important, that would authorize such an undertaking against any foreign nation. What is important is that George W. Bush unilaterally decided, in violation of US law and international law, to invade a sovereign foreign nation, Iraq, and should stand trial for it.

The Framers, as you are probably unaware, were envisioning treaties amongst states, not foreign treaties. They surely and quite obviously were not offering authority to foreign powers, although that part of the Constitution has been misinterpreted to read such.

That's simply not true, Benjamin Franklin had already concluded the Treaty of Paris as a diplomat under the Articles of Confederation in 1783; foreign treaties were well known and understood to be a power granted to the federal government by the compact of states.

Keep in mind here, I'm not advocating either UN power nor dissolving sovereignty via the treaty power of the federal government; merely pointing out that the treaty power is in the Constitution and that the US government signed said UN treaty and agreed to abide by it. The Un allows declarations of war against and invasion of a member state if said member state commited an act of war by the declaring or invading state; none of which pertains to Iraq. Iraq never committed an act of war against America, and still hasn't. Iraqi's can kill every American on their soil lawfully because the US government is there illegally.

As an aside, if a country were to invade America I'd kill everyone of them I could, brutally I might add, for as long as I could, until they left, or I was dead.

"A treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country, or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution..." -- Alexander Hamilton

Hamilton, who I might add was killed just a few years too late by Aaron Burr, was a sleazy criminal. He wrote much of the weasel words in the Constitution, such as anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding which basically grants the federal government precedent over state law. That power was removed by the Tenth Amendment, but the Supreme Court nullified the Tenth Amendment during the monster Franklin Roosevelts administrations.

"I do not conceive that power is given to the President and the Senate to dismember the empire, or to alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority to have this power." -- James Madison

Yes, I agree with Madison, too bad the federal government does not, and routinely enacts legislation in violation of the Constitution. The National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 both violate the Constitution, yet the Supreme Court has refused to take a Second Amendment case since 1938.

The creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Endangered Species Act, and the authority of the Army Corps of Engineers to declare the mud puddles in your backyard a navigable waterway are other blatantly unConstitutional laws; yet they are enforced at gun point daily.

"I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson[/i]

I certainly agree with Thomas Jefferson, one of the fathers of American libertarianism; but you must deal with federal government courts who do not. For example, where do you think the federal government gets the power to regulate migratory waterfowl hunting seasons? It's via a treaty signed in the 1920's with Canada. And no, I don't care if you don't believe me, I've seen the Supreme Court decision, and that's what it says.

This all returns to my point, which is Bush, the current sitting president; is commiting war crimes under US and international law; do you want a country wherein the law is enforced, more so against the government than the individual citizen, or do you want a country wherein the law is what some government thug says it is today, that might say it's different tomorrow?

Civilization or the abyss; that's your only choice here.