13-05-2002 10:30									#121
	Remove this text

What you just said doesn't make any sense. Treaties are agreed to by the US federal gov't; why would this same body try to undercut treaties it's signed? The US would do better to just pass another law getting rid of the agreement to the treaty (breaking international law, not domestic).

The point of treaty law superceding all domestic law except the Constitution (which is an element of internal US policy, BTW; it's not been imposed on you from outside) is to guarantee that the US fed. gov't can live up to the treaties it signs without having to worry that it's violating Subsection vi(b) of Statute 3674 of Illinois state law...

	13-05-2002 10:40									#122
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse What you just said doesn't make any sense. Treaties are agreed to by the US federal gov't; why would this same body try to undercut treaties it's signed?

It wouldn't. That is the point of my post.

I don't think that you understand what I am trying to say. The U.S. isn't going to sign something that it doesn't want to, as is shown by the thread topic. The U.S. will sign something that benefits the U.S. as a whole, even if it violates a particular article in some a state law. However, we won't agree to a law that violates fundamental national laws ( the Constitution).

	13-05-2002 10:43									#123
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Yeah, and you responded to Saint Marcus (?) who was making the point that a treaty violating domestic law is no barrier to signing it by saying that international law doesn't supercede domestic law. I think you might have misunderstood the original context...

	13-05-2002 15:29									#124
	Tired of ads?

quote: The U.S. will sign something that benefits the U.S. as a whole, even if it violates a particular article in some a state law. However, we won't agree to a law that violates fundamental national laws ( the Constitution).

quote: Yeah, and you responded to Saint Marcus (?) who was making the point that a treaty violating domestic law is no barrier to signing it by saying that international law doesn't supercede domestic law. I think you might have misunderstood the original context...

Thanks for clearing that up.

	13-05-2002 18:22									#125
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The Economist on this issue:

Title: Oh, and Somalia too
Subtitle: America's almost solitary refusal to do the decent thing

	13-05-2002 22:51									#126
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Dalgetti well, call it mid-eastern culture then.

It also occurs in India, in South America, in Africa, and in the US, and probably everywhere in the world. In many places it isn't legal, but if the authorities refuse to prosecute, it doesn't matter. This isn't limited geographically or ideologically. It occurs almost world wide, just someplaces more than others.