 |
| |
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Not against Americans, which is the point. |
Was still impartial... there is nothing that is impartial really.
quote:
That's why SCOTUS exists - to interpret the Constitution. |
Tut-tut, Floyd.
Art 3, Sec 2
quote:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects |
Says NOTHING about Constitutionality, just to render decisions using law that has been passed by Congress and the President. That is what I see using a strict view.
It was set up to interpret law made by the federal government, not the Constitution.... read some of Jefferson's writings.
quote:
OK, I'll grant you the point on actual genocide, but Mao's murders all happened post 1950, as one example. The UN certainly didn't stop that. |
Kinda hard, when the UN didn't recognize the PRC (because of the US) until the 70s  .
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
The Court - which, as you admit, was made up of Founders - argued convincingly that because the Constitution strictly limited federal power, it was reasonable to say that a judicial body is constitutionally entitled to use judicial review in order to ensure federal compliance with the Constitution.
Because John Marshall was one of the Founders, I'm gonna have to go with his view on the matter. |
It isn't strictly stated in the Constituton, therefore, it has to be an interpretation of what the Constitution says. Plenty of Founders said that the Court exceeded its power by calling for judicial review. Washington and Adams didn't do anything about it, and thus the precedent was set.
As Andrew Jackson, said "The Court has made its decisions, now let it enforce it".... indicating that even in 1830s, some did not believe in the court's power for judicial review (if the President would not follow it's orders).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
It isn't strictly stated in the Constituton, therefore, it has to be an interpretation of what the Constitution says. Plenty of Founders said that the Court exceeded its power by calling for judicial review. Washington and Adams didn't do anything about it, and thus the precedent was set.
As Andrew Jackson, said "The Court has made its decisions, now let it enforce it".... indicating that even in 1830s, some did not believe in the court's power for judicial review (if the President would not follow it's orders). |
Yes, it was certainly a controversial decision, but just as Congress and the States have implied powers, and the people have implied rights, it only makes sense that the courts have implied powers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
So why can't the UN imply power from the Geneva Convention (ie, have a court to enforce the convention). |
Because unlike the Constitution the Geneva Convention neither implies powers or sets up judicial bodies.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Roland
|
 |
Auf'm Jahrmarkt :(
May 1999
time: 06:19
|
|
I could make a longwinded post on this issue, but I wonder - who of you debaters about the ICC HAS READ AT LEAST PART OF THE ****ING STATUTE ?!?!? Looks to me like most of you are talking about a fantasy statute.
Someone asked for a cutoff date - well, lookie, Art 11:
quote:
Jurisdiction ratione temporis
1. The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute.
2. If a State becomes a Party to this Statute after its entry into force, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute for that State, unless that State has made a declaration under article 12, paragraph 3. |
Someone asked about constitutional rights (GP?) - well, naturally not the US constitution. Although Art 21 para 3:
quote:
3. The application and interpretation of law pursuant to this article must be consistent with internationally recognized human rights... |
GP:
"I never said that the US or agents of the US had never done anything wrong. (Although, don't agree with all your cases...but even if I give you some. My point remains.) We are the good guys."
Relatively "good" in relation to western and developped east asian countries. But will you seriously tell me that the US has been the good guy in Chile, Iran, Nicaragua... ?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-05-2002 11:41
As Paiktis will tell you, GP only has so many cute comments. I end up having to say the same thing in every discussion. Don't be wearing out my phrases, like you did with my Kitty Horse and Brat Pack (TM) monikers. 
.
Don't we gain from international cooperation? Don't we gain from more political integration... so that we can spread our culture of human rights across the world? The US has been interested in spreading 'human rights' since 1914... this would solidify that. Unless we don't gain from spreading 'human rights' and in that case, that admission makes us lose face.
|