Yet again the UN sticks its nose into a US state's business

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Personally, i think anyone who does not cooperate with international law deserves a punishment severe enough to make them.

Why do we even have separate countries? And in this case separate states? If international law rules over all, what's the point?

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Craig234
Really? Then why don't you go tell a state ordered to pay federal taxes that the federal government gives to the UN, that it has the right to keep that money in its pocket.

The state is compelled to pay federal taxes, and the federal government can do with that money as it sees fit, but the state does not have to "answer to the UN" in any way.

The SCOTUS has ruled on the issue, and you are wrong.

Go Texas, one fewer criminal roaming the streets today.

The point you missed that I was making is, Texas *is* beholden to the UN - through the federal government. They have to give their money to the UN, through the feds.

For that matter, the Feds *can* draft the people of Texas and *can* order them to serve a UN commander.

I acknowledge what the 5 Supreme Court Justices did - having a differen view doesn't make me and the other 4 Justices 'wrong'.

Yes, 9-0 or 5-4, the SCOTUS has ruled, meaning the matter has been settled as law. Meaning, from the legal perspective, you are wrong, the state of Texas does not have to listen to the UN and is not beholden to the UN. All the rest is useless banter.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Craig234
Really? Then why don't you go tell a state ordered to pay federal taxes that the federal government gives to the UN, that it has the right to keep that money in its pocket.

The state is compelled to pay federal taxes, and the federal government can do with that money as it sees fit, but the state does not have to "answer to the UN" in any way.

The SCOTUS has ruled on the issue, and you are wrong.

Go Texas, one fewer criminal roaming the streets today.

I'm not sure what you guys are talking about, but "states" don't pay taxes to the federal government.

The federal government isn't even allowed to tax interest states pay on their own bonds.

The federal government gives money to states, but not the other way around.

Fern

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: lupi
Another good example of why the US should pull all funding from the UN and see how it floats then.

Man, I'm tired of the idiocy of the people in my country who are thugs in global power.

The only one here supporting "global power" is you.

If it were up to me, the USA would have nothing to do with the UN. Our own government is fat enough.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Dari
Texas should've executed this guy the second after he was convicted. People tend to forget this nation is a federation.

You don't know what a federation is. A state is not allowed to execute someone 'the second they are convicted' by th econstitutionand for very good reason you don't know about.

Are you tossing around the support of the Constitution at the same time you're putting UN law over the state of Texas?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Are you tossing around the support of the Constitution at the same time you're putting UN law over the state of Texas?

the surpremacy clause required texas to make efforts to give effect to the treaty and texas failed to do so.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I can't help but notice that "state's rights" doesn't seem to stop Texas from taking federal money when they want to. And despite our repeated assertions that the UN can go fuck themselves when they want us to do something, we seem perfectly willing to invade other countries from ignoring the UN. You can't have it both ways.

I'm sure Texas would give up federal money if it's citizens didn't pay Federal taxes.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
...i know international law...

Bwahahahaha. Yes, you international lawyer you

international internet armchair lawyer

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I can't help but notice that "state's rights" doesn't seem to stop Texas from taking federal money when they want to. And despite our repeated assertions that the UN can go fuck themselves when they want us to do something, we seem perfectly willing to invade other countries from ignoring the UN. You can't have it both ways.

I'm sure Texas would give up federal money if it's citizens didn't pay Federal taxes.

The federal governement gives states money because the federal gov asks them to do things for it (mandates). So, they need to pay.

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: bamacre
Are you tossing around the support of the Constitution at the same time you're putting UN law over the state of Texas?

the surpremacy clause required texas to make efforts to give effect to the treaty and texas failed to do so.

And SCOTUS determined they didn't have to do so.

Originally posted by: lupi
Yeah, it's just a shame it wasn't your daughter/wife/sister/mother instead of those two.

banworthy. It's pronounced "loopy" right?

 

[Craig234]

nm

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jonks

the surpremacy clause required texas to make efforts to give effect to the treaty and texas failed to do so.

And SCOTUS determined they didn't have to do so.

the only opinion that mattered in that decision determined it wasn't a justiciable question.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Dari
Texas should've executed this guy the second after he was convicted. People tend to forget this nation is a federation.

You don't know what a federation is. A state is not allowed to execute someone 'the second they are convicted' by th econstitutionand for very good reason you don't know about.

My statement was not meant to be taken literally. However, people fail to realize that we are a union of states and that states' rights are not beholden to a supranational organization like the UN. The UN ONLY deals with the federal government, not states. This was not a federal crime so the feds should stay the fuck out of this.

 

[Triumph]

I'm kind of torn on the issue. I mean, on one hand if I committed a crime in another country, I would like to have the opportunity to talk to my embassy. "Crime" means different things in different countries, I mean, you can't spit on the sidewalk in Singapore, but an American could easily not know this. I'm not making excuses, just saying that cultures are vastly different and it's impossible to know every single law in a country that you're visiting for two weeks.

But, with that being said, the Mexican government and the UN could've chosen a better candidate for taking up this fight, than a couple of murdering rapists. What a bad decision on their part. How about finding someone whose crime is not so heinous and whose guilt is somewhat questionable?

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: Triumph
I'm kind of torn on the issue. I mean, on one hand if I committed a crime in another country, I would like to have the opportunity to talk to my embassy. "Crime" means different things in different countries, I mean, you can't spit on the sidewalk in Singapore, but an American could easily not know this. I'm not making excuses, just saying that cultures are vastly different and it's impossible to know every single law in a country that you're visiting for two weeks.

But, with that being said, the Mexican government and the UN could've chosen a better candidate for taking up this fight, than a couple of murdering rapists. What a bad decision on their part. How about finding someone whose crime is not so heinous and whose guilt is somewhat questionable?

I agree with you on the fact that what goes around, comes around and no matter what he did, he was denied access to the embassy. And it could effect americans in the future on trumpted up charges.

would it have been so bad to retry the low life with his government involved?

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Craig234
Really? Then why don't you go tell a state ordered to pay federal taxes that the federal government gives to the UN, that it has the right to keep that money in its pocket.

The state is compelled to pay federal taxes, and the federal government can do with that money as it sees fit, but the state does not have to "answer to the UN" in any way.

The SCOTUS has ruled on the issue, and you are wrong.

Go Texas, one fewer criminal roaming the streets today.

I'm not sure what you guys are talking about, but "states" don't pay taxes to the federal government.

The federal government isn't even allowed to tax interest states pay on their own bonds.

The federal government gives money to states, but not the other way around.

Fern

The state doesn't directly give the money to the federal government, I meant indirectly by way of state citizens paying money to the federal government.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Triumph
I'm kind of torn on the issue. I mean, on one hand if I committed a crime in another country, I would like to have the opportunity to talk to my embassy. "Crime" means different things in different countries, I mean, you can't spit on the sidewalk in Singapore, but an American could easily not know this. I'm not making excuses, just saying that cultures are vastly different and it's impossible to know every single law in a country that you're visiting for two weeks.

But, with that being said, the Mexican government and the UN could've chosen a better candidate for taking up this fight, than a couple of murdering rapists. What a bad decision on their part. How about finding someone whose crime is not so heinous and whose guilt is somewhat questionable?

Agreed 100% :thumbsup:

I'm glad the world has been rid of that scum though, so from that perspective I'm glad Texas took care of business.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Triumph
I'm kind of torn on the issue. I mean, on one hand if I committed a crime in another country, I would like to have the opportunity to talk to my embassy. "Crime" means different things in different countries, I mean, you can't spit on the sidewalk in Singapore, but an American could easily not know this. I'm not making excuses, just saying that cultures are vastly different and it's impossible to know every single law in a country that you're visiting for two weeks.

But, with that being said, the Mexican government and the UN could've chosen a better candidate for taking up this fight, than a couple of murdering rapists. What a bad decision on their part. How about finding someone whose crime is not so heinous and whose guilt is somewhat questionable?

I agree, good post!