🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ewright.726797449@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <C0Js9I.87@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>
>>Careful here...  I don't know exactly what legal maneuvers took place
>>when the US formally joined the UN, but if the UN Charter has the status
>>of a Senate-ratified treaty, that means it has the force of law in the
>>US... and one of the clauses in there is a renunciation of war as an
>>instrument of national policy.
>
>Well, not really.  The "supreme law of the land" is the US Constitution,
>not international treaties -- no matter what the State Department might
>tell you.  It pretty specifically spells out warmaking powers in terms
>that can't be ammended by a simple act of Congress.
>

  I beg to differ.  Article 6 of the U.S. consitution states "...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 eery State shall be bound
thereby..."

  The above includes anything George Bush signs.

>All of which is irrelevent because, as I said, George Bush de facto
>surrendered US sovereignty in 1992.
>

  Sovereignty is an illusion to begin with.  It doesn't exist.


---
  ##########################################################################   
  ##   /   ##               Progress Before Peace!               ##   /   ## 
  ##  //   ## Matt J. Martin, Technosociology and Space Politics ##  //   ## 
  ## ///// ######################################################## ///// ##
  ##   //  ##        Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN       ##   //  ##
  ##   /   ##           myempire@mentor.cc.purdue.edu            ##   /   ##
  ##########################################################################