From the perspective of the US government, Iâm sure the old playground bully retort âYeah? But what are you gunna do about it?â comes to mind.
They rely on the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
Beware of the leopard
Letâs be clear and remove the âinternational human rightsâ part. Wherever ignorance of the law is not an excuse secret law does not qualify as âlawâ.
Yet the legal basis for these unprecedented intrusions into privacy remains opaque.
The legal basis is their ability to continually pull the ânational security, we donât have to tell you jackâ card. And absolutely nothing else.
The TrialâŚ
Being American, I think of that book almost every day. To say that the US legal system has become Kafka-esque is an understatement. Weâve actually surpassed his dystopic vision.
Perfect analysis. It should be a Supreme Court argument winner. âShouldâ being the operative word. But bravo for your simple, clear headed comment.
If the program was legal, it wouldnât be secret. If the program wasnât secret, it wouldnât work. Therefore, the illegal program must be secret, and is therefore legal. Q.E.D.
Pretty sure thatâs all I need to get one of those NSA âlawyerâ jobs now.
The plans were on displayâŚ
Ms. Cohn has so earned herself double secret probation with this one!
Without wishing to undermine the validity of the point made, there is also a very good argument to make that âinternational human rights lawâ, as far as such a thing exists, is also not law, but rather a codified treaties between nations, lacking the required punishment to be a lawâŚ
Assert our 2nd amendment rights?
By which, of course, I mean form a well-regulated militia, not some sort of rabble.
Article VI of the United States Constitution states, in part:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So treaties are part of U.S. law assuming they were negotiated by the President (or his representatives, I would assume) and approved by the Senate. From Article II section 2, which describes the powers of the Presidency:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
I disagree. Laws donât necessarily have punishments associated with them, particularly laws that restrict governments. If the Canadian government passes a law that violated my rights under our charter, there is no punishment, but a court could rule that the law is not valid and that I canât be bound by it. Basically all rights laws work this way.
The question is whether domestic courts have the constitutional authority and the interest in overturning legislation or awarding civil damages based on international treaties. Iâm going to have to ask some lawyer friends, because I really donât know about that one (and, obviously, it will vary from place to place).
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
