For US citizens: International law vs. Constitution.

[werepossum]

a few points...

1) "Superiority" is entirely subjective, and is in all cases an individual decision or perception based on ideals and philosophy.
2) If an international law is deemed "superior" by a majority of Americans, then it can and should be amended to the existing US Constitution through the well-defined ratification process.
3) Until then, most, like me, feel that the US Constitution is a reflection of those rights that are "superior" to any others in the world, period.

At no time should an "international law," or power, be imposed above, or in spite of, the US Constitution. Don't like it? Amend the Constitution properly... or move.

Very well said indeed.

 

[Moonbeam]

Very well said indeed.

How can it be well said? How can justice be subjective if our law is based on alienable rights? How can our Constitution be worth anything if it is based on the false belief in absolutes? There is either real justice or there is not and anybody can say anything is the best.

No, even monkeys know justice from injustice. There is nothing subjective about it at all. To call a terrible illusion, a wrong-headed notion that justice is subjective, well said, is to deny the the sacred and impugn the foundation of Western Civilization. Away with the both of you.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

How can it be well said? How can justice be subjective if our law is based on alienable rights? How can our Constitution be worth anything if it is based on the false belief in absolutes? There is either real justice or there is not and anybody can say anything is the best.

No, even monkeys know justice from injustice. There is nothing subjective about it at all. To call a terrible illusion, a wrong-headed notion that justice is subjective, well said, is to deny the the sacred and impugn the foundation of Western Civilization. Away with the both of you.

Our Constitution isn't based on the false belief in absolutes. It doesn't claim to be a perfect document and the framers knew it to be so. It was put in place to be followed and if a change/update was needed it set out a process for doing so. It's not about absolutes, it's about setting the boundaries - the law... but I don't expect someone like you to understand such things.

 

[palehorse]

How can it be well said? How can justice be subjective if our law is based on alienable rights? How can our Constitution be worth anything if it is based on the false belief in absolutes? There is either real justice or there is not and anybody can say anything is the best.

No, even monkeys know justice from injustice. There is nothing subjective about it at all. To call a terrible illusion, a wrong-headed notion that justice is subjective, well said, is to deny the the sacred and impugn the foundation of Western Civilization. Away with the both of you.

The laws that govern man, as well as the concepts of justice and injustice, are entirely subjective. They are based on the concept of the majority -- or those elected by the majority -- writing our laws to reflect said majority's feeling on each given issue.

For that reason, our forefathers implemented a system that allows us to band together and modify our laws accordingly, or to adapt them to dramatic shifts in belief or majority opinion. The ratification process is there for the very purpose of addressing what you seem to believe may be newly found or superior laws elsewhere in the world. If/when such laws surface, or the opinion of the majority changes to reflect the supposed injustices, then the ratification process is the ONLY option you have to change our laws or amend the Constitution itself.

Until then, the Constitution über alles, and your "superior" international laws can not, and should not, apply to any person on US soil.

If a foreign power is ever granted the power of law over U.S. persons on U.S. soil, I will participate in the armed revolution that follows.

Exhibit A:
Some people believe that justice is served when a drug dealer is placed behind bars, while others believe that doing so is a tragic injustice. Still others believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle between punishment and the lack thereof.

How can you claim that such opinions of justice are anything other than subjective?

 

[Moonbeam]

CADsortaGUY: Our Constitution isn't based on the false belief in absolutes.

M: You idiot. That is what I said. The absolutes aren't false they are true.

C: It doesn't claim to be a perfect document and the framers knew it to be so.

M: Hehehehehehehe. You are unbelievable. Here you are arguing there is no absolute justice and telling me the founding fathers knew they would not reach perfection and you can't even see you are making my point. Perfection is the absolute and you can't fall short of it if it does not exist, and which you conveniently explain and admit that it does just by referring to the concept.

C: It was put in place to be followed and if a change/update was needed it set out a process for doing so. It's not about absolutes, it's about setting the boundaries - the law...

M: I already told you that law is an approximation of justice which is absolute.

C: but I don't expect someone like you to understand such things.

M: It would just be nice if you could actually read.

 

[Moonbeam]

The laws that govern man, as well as the concepts of justice and injustice, are entirely subjective. They are based on the concept of the majority -- or those elected by the majority -- writing our laws to reflect said majority's feeling on each given issue.

For that reason, our forefathers implemented a system that allows us to band together and modify our laws accordingly, or to adapt them to dramatic shifts in belief or majority opinion. The ratification process is there for the very purpose of addressing what you seem to believe may be newly found or superior laws elsewhere in the world. If/when such laws surface, or the opinion of the majority changes to reflect the supposed injustices, then the ratification process is the ONLY option you have to change our laws or amend the Constitution itself.

M: Ah, so we adapt superior law when we evolve to the point where we can see it is superior, and I guess it isn't absolutely true the that superior is better than inferior, it being that much closer to perfection.

p: Until then, the Constitution über alles, and your "superior" international laws can not, and should not, apply to any person on US soil.

If a foreign power is ever granted the power of law over U.S. persons on U.S. soil, I will participate in the armed revolution that follows.

M: Great, everybody should have a revolution where they fight to keep superior law from applying. This shows real intelligence.

p: Exhibit A:
Some people believe that justice is served when a drug dealer is placed behind bars, while others believe that doing so is a tragic injustice. Still others believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle between punishment and the lack thereof.

How can you claim that such opinions of justice are anything other than subjective?

M: Superior vision. None of those alternatives is justice. They are just opinions. Serving justice is something that egos do to pat themselves on the back, to flatter themselves they have done the right thing. Justice exists only where there is love and one can't love two masters.

 

[palehorse]

speaking of "egos"...

 

[HannibalX]

1) Do you believe that international law is superior to your rights under the Constitution?

No fucking way.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

CADsortaGUY: Our Constitution isn't based on the false belief in absolutes.

M: You idiot. That is what I said. The absolutes aren't false they are true.

C: It doesn't claim to be a perfect document and the framers knew it to be so.

M: Hehehehehehehe. You are unbelievable. Here you are arguing there is no absolute justice and telling me the founding fathers knew they would not reach perfection and you can't even see you are making my point. Perfection is the absolute and you can't fall short of it if it does not exist, and which you conveniently explain and admit that it does just by referring to the concept.

C: It was put in place to be followed and if a change/update was needed it set out a process for doing so. It's not about absolutes, it's about setting the boundaries - the law...

M: I already told you that law is an approximation of justice which is absolute.

C: but I don't expect someone like you to understand such things.

M: It would just be nice if you could actually read.

"Here you are arguing there is no absolute justice" - that is incorrect. I argued no such thing. My comments were on the Constitution. "justice" may not be reached with our Constitution but it is the law of our land and is overrides any "international law" to us as citizens - period.

 

[Moonbeam]

speaking of "egos"...

Yes, do you see how it works. I identify some examples of how ego gets confused with truth, it must be true because it makes me feel good and identify that as having superior vision. They you inject your ego, compare my statement of having a superior, above, point of view, with what you naturally assume must be your inferior point of view, and all of a sudden, because your ego is threatened, I become conceited. Actually, all that happened is that I showed you a superior point of view and instead of being open to it, you had to inject your feelings of inferiority into the matter and assume you're being put down. The reaction then is to go after me. Sadly, I am mush too conceited, far and away too superior, to be bothered by anything like that. Having no inferiority whatsoever, I have none to inject.

 

[Moonbeam]

"Here you are arguing there is no absolute justice" - that is incorrect. I argued no such thing. My comments were on the Constitution. "justice" may not be reached with our Constitution but it is the law of our land and is overrides any "international law" to us as citizens - period.

Ah but you see you were arguing it as opposed to what I said when it IS what I said.

 

[palehorse]

Yes, do you see how it works. I identify some examples of how ego gets confused with truth, it must be true because it makes me feel good and identify that as having superior vision. They you inject your ego, compare my statement of having a superior, above, point of view, with what you naturally assume must be your inferior point of view, and all of a sudden, because your ego is threatened, I become conceited. Actually, all that happened is that I showed you a superior point of view and instead of being open to it, you had to inject your feelings of inferiority into the matter and assume you're being put down. The reaction then is to go after me. Sadly, I am mush too conceited, far and away too superior, to be bothered by anything like that. Having no inferiority whatsoever, I have none to inject.

lol.. wow.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Ah but you see you were arguing it as opposed to what I said when it IS what I said.

So when you stated: "How can our Constitution be worth anything if it is based on the false belief in absolutes?" - are you stating it is or isn't based on absolutes?

 

[Moonbeam]

So when you stated: "How can our Constitution be worth anything if it is based on the false belief in absolutes?" - are you stating it is or isn't based on absolutes?

I am saying that the Constitution is based on the notion of universal truths that are inalienable, things such as the right to life liberty, etc. and that our laws, while approximations to justice, have absolute justice as their aim. The founding fathers believed in Creator given rights and that the entitlement to them for all men everywhere is justice. We have these relativists proclaiming their worship of our Constitutional system of government but they want to pretend that it is not founded on beliefs in the absolute. The notion of absolutes is fundamental to the theoretical underpinnings of our Constitutional system.

 

[Zebo]

Let them try.

 

[B00ne]

are you asking whether someone in the US violates international law while INSIDE the USA or in another country?

for example.. it's illegal to talk about nazi germany in germany.
by making this statement, i just violated german law.

however i am inside the usa while making that statement.. so i cannot be held accountable for german law.

however.. if i was in germany while i made that statement, and then returned to the USA, the german law can request i be extradited to stand trial for violating the law.

I am sorry I have to correct you before someone belives this BS.
Noone can legally stop you from talking about Nazi Germany - period.

Illegal is: to parade around with the Nazi flag, raising your right arm to a "Heil" and shouting "concentration camps did not exsist". But that is not talking, but glorifying, lying and denying the holocaust. Note the difference to "talking about"!

Regarding this international law issue - I am not aware of any such thing. There are international treaties/agreements and thats it. Maybe some of them might be commonly referred to as international law because pretty much every country has agrred to the treaty. I am unaware of any official thing that is called international law.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I am saying that the Constitution is based on the notion of universal truths that are inalienable, things such as the right to life liberty, etc. and that our laws, while approximations to justice, have absolute justice as their aim. The founding fathers believed in Creator given rights and that the entitlement to them for all men everywhere is justice. We have these relativists proclaiming their worship of our Constitutional system of government but they want to pretend that it is not founded on beliefs in the absolute. The notion of absolutes is fundamental to the theoretical underpinnings of our Constitutional system.

So the answer is yes it is?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So the answer is yes it is?

Heavens, let's cut to the chase.

The "Creator" granted these inalienable rights. They exist because a superior being said they do.

That creates issues. If someone asserts that there is no Creator, then there is no higher moral authority and therefor nor higher determiner of what is correct. That means the whole concept of "inalienable" is flawed. If they aren't set into moral spacetime if you will, then they certainly can be revoked.

Now if people derive their rights from others, who says what they are and who get's to pick what they are?

Some say that the Government is the overriding authority in our lives, and so logically all rights are granted or taken away by it, and it has absolute say.

Others believe that rights are determined by the society being looked at. If you are in the US, then those who do not appeal to higher authority could say that our rights are inalienable because they ought to be. There is no absolute set of rights, but the culture determines what rights and morals are.

In all cases but the "creator" scenario even "inalienable" rights are relative, as are morals. It's considered acceptable to eat another person in other cultures. The fact that this or slavery offends us is because it goes against what WE believe to be right, but again if there is no absolute metric of right or wrong then it's relative depending on the frame of cultural reference.

I didn't think this stuff was hard.

 

[Moonbeam]

Heavens, let's cut to the chase.

The "Creator" granted these inalienable rights. They exist because a superior being said they do.

That creates issues. If someone asserts that there is no Creator, then there is no higher moral authority and therefor nor higher determiner of what is correct. That means the whole concept of "inalienable" is flawed. If they aren't set into moral spacetime if you will, then they certainly can be revoked.

Now if people derive their rights from others, who says what they are and who get's to pick what they are?

Some say that the Government is the overriding authority in our lives, and so logically all rights are granted or taken away by it, and it has absolute say.

Others believe that rights are determined by the society being looked at. If you are in the US, then those who do not appeal to higher authority could say that our rights are inalienable because they ought to be. There is no absolute set of rights, but the culture determines what rights and morals are.

In all cases but the "creator" scenario even "inalienable" rights are relative, as are morals. It's considered acceptable to eat another person in other cultures. The fact that this or slavery offends us is because it goes against what WE believe to be right, but again if there is no absolute metric of right or wrong then it's relative depending on the frame of cultural reference.

I didn't think this stuff was hard.

That last part is wrong, no?

It does not matter what one culture or another think are inalienable rights, it matters only what the Creator says they are. If there is a Creator who grants inalienable rights those rights are specific and absolute. Cultures may argue among themselves as to what the Creator thinks, but the Creator knows what he thinks and His thoughts are the law. His justice is absolute.

The preposterous part comes in when superficials like palehorse maintain we have the greatest system but do not believe in the very root and core of that system, that rights are absolute and inalienable and that justice is not somebody's opinion but an absolute force in the Universe. He is illogical in his thinking but if you point it out it means you are conceited. Hehe. That, of course, is more illogic on his part because there is no relationship between how conceited I am and how illogical he is.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That last part is wrong, no?

It does not matter what one culture or another think are inalienable rights, it matters only what the Creator says they are. If there is a Creator who grants inalienable rights those rights are specific and absolute. Cultures may argue among themselves as to what the Creator thinks, but the Creator knows what he thinks and His thoughts are the law. His justice is absolute.

The preposterous part comes in when superficials like palehorse maintain we have the greatest system but do not believe in the very root and core of that system, that rights are absolute and inalienable and that justice is not somebody's opinion but an absolute force in the Universe. He is illogical in his thinking but if you point it out it means you are conceited. Hehe. That, of course, is more illogic on his part because there is no relationship between how conceited I am and how illogical he is.

Well, I was approaching it from possible viewpoints, not what I believe, or what is "real".

Something which strikes me as odd (but perfectly consistent with inconsistent beings such as us) is the application of rights enumerated in the Constitution.

If all men are created equal, then all have the same rights, and that governments remove them doesn't change that fact even if it's our own. The Constitution doesn't give rights, it just serves to protect them.

So if that is true then why do people who claim inalienable rights say that Gitmo detainees don't have them? Of course they do.

I expect the response would be "The Constitution only applies to US citizens". Technically true enough, but that would imply that the founders believed that only US citizens are entitled to the rights that were said to be due to all.

It's an untenable argument. Either we all have these rights or none do.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well, I was approaching it from possible viewpoints, not what I believe, or what is "real".

Something which strikes me as odd (but perfectly consistent with inconsistent beings such as us) is the application of rights enumerated in the Constitution.

If all men are created equal, then all have the same rights, and that governments remove them doesn't change that fact even if it's our own. The Constitution doesn't give rights, it just serves to protect them.

So if that is true then why do people who claim inalienable rights say that Gitmo detainees don't have them? Of course they do.

I expect the response would be "The Constitution only applies to US citizens". Technically true enough, but that would imply that the founders believed that only US citizens are entitled to the rights that were said to be due to all.

It's an untenable argument. Either we all have these rights or none do.

Well, lots of folk are modest and not conceited like me. They think that equality means they are as good as others but others are not as good as them.

 

[Oceandevi]

I have the power to destroy a persons god given rights. Does murdering them make me a god?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I have the power to destroy a persons god given rights. Does murdering them make me a god?

It allows you to make a rock so big you can't lift it. Not a lot of money in that though.

 

[Moonbeam]

I have the power to destroy a persons god given rights. Does murdering them make me a god?

You destroy the body not the rights, which are eternal and absolute.

 

[LunarRay]

This applies to US citizens in the US.
Supposing some foreign government or multinational power decides a citizen has violated an international law. They wish to apply it although it would directly violate the US Constitution.

1) Do you believe that international law is superior to your rights under the Constitution?

2) Do you believe the US government which is bound by the Constitution as it's ultimate guiding document should surrender citizens if the law conflicts with Constitutional protections?

3) If you believe international law trumps Constitutional, would you be willing to give those rights up if it was you or your family?

Moonbeam's notion of The Creator's gift of rights aside, Your number one deals with both sovereignty and treaty. International laws, it seems to me, are valid to the extent we obligate ourselves to them via a treaty. Treaties that are agreed to under Constitutional provisions are, therefore, flowing from the Constitution and consistent with it. Your number two would be left to the final arbiter of that question, The SCOTUS. In order for a protection to be void a treaty must exist to enable that provision (assumes an international 'surrender' of a person) ergo, the protection is mitigated or made voidable by a decision by SCOTUS that the action IS Constitutional. Your number three is not something one can give up for another nor would it be wise to give a protection up for the sake of being a proper 'world' citizen but one could... it wouldn't be me.
I find the notion of this Creator and his gifting of Rights to be quite interesting and applicable only if the Creator is 'within' us. Assuming this Creator is God as we come to think of him/her and further assuming this God was manifest in the fellow Jesus, who spoke to heavenly pursuits and not earthly ones, I find that 'Rights' position or notion to be the desires of Man and not the expectation of God. Although, I do find the 'Divine Rights of Kings' to be more in line with my desires.
The folks back in '76 had to come up with a good argument to encourage folks to join their treasonous actions. Who better than God to bolster the cause.
Power determines Rights and enforces their existence, protection and elimination. There is no Right that cannot be terminated by the will of the Power that provides it or them. The Creator made laws, I'll agree. We call it physics and the like... Social Laws are created also by a Creator.. but he is us... We are the Creator and we say what it means and all the rest... The entity what created the Universe ain't among us... lest he is as Moonbeam might argue... within us..