Slashdot Mirror

Technically it never reached the point of being able to be ratified. First, there must be the "advice and consent" of the Senate, and THEN ratified by the POTUS. However, there is a long tradition in the US called "Sole Executive" agreements. Congress has tried several times to "revoke" this tradition and failed, so this is one of those measures that is "not specifically denied" so technically allowed. In regards to the Paris Agreement, there is (was?) a high chance of any monetary costs incurred by US entities would have been challenged and blocked; reasons for this stem from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The Paris Agreement was, however, crafted specifically with this in mind. They purposly did NOT call it a "treaty", and this is exact reason why most of the terms are nonbinding, and why it calls for countries to set targets without setting sanctions for noncompliance. It's purposely vague because of US law.

References: International Agreements and U.S. Law
The Constitution - Executive agreements
The Paris Accord and the Reality of Presidential Power

You are uninformed.

Non-citizens are protected by the constitution: http://www.asil.org/insights080620.cfm

Obama's definition of imminent: page 7, par 2, first sentence:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
Analysis: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo

Obama's definition of militant:
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/
which should be put in context with the recent CIA document leak which confirms that the Obama administration kills random people and calls them militants:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/09/188062/obamas-drone-war-kills-others.html

A minor clarification. North Korea is a signatory to the NPT, but has decided to withdraw from it. http://www.asil.org/insigh96.cfm

Being a signatory, then withdrawing, explains some of the pressure on NK to return to compliance with the NPT. The Bat-Shit-Craziness of NK explains the rest.

Also (and no I can't be assed to make links this time):

http://inclusion.semitagui.gov.co/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/Treaties.htm

http://www.asil.org/insigh10.cfm

http://florida.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/05/treaties-do-not-override-the-constitution/

You will find that self executing treaties are not all that rare, and even non self executing treaties often affect everything up to and including the USC.

But its worse than that, because the Supreme Court has NEVER declared a treaty unconstitutional. EVER.

So a ratified treaty ends up having the same effect as an amendment to the constitution. No judge will rule against it.

The effect of treaties is to amend the constitution.
A ratified treaty holds the same sway as an ammendment.

Argue ans split hairs all you want, the fact remains that the Supreme Court has yet to hold a treaty unconstitutional.

It has NEVER happened.

Therefore, The point remains that if this treaty is ratified, we are stuck with it just as much as we were stuck with any other amendment to our constitution, until repealed. If any provision violates our Constitution, history has demonstrated in EVERY instance that the Treaty will hold sway.

This has become a popular meme in politics, but it simply isn't true. Re: Reid v. Covert, October 1956

More info here, here, & here.

And how exactly does US law apply to EU courts? Do EU courts ever use US laws? That would seem utterly stupid to me.

If need be, I highly recommend that the US resign from the UN and see how long it holds together without our monetary support.

I can only speak for myself, but I would be ashamed of my government's actions if I lived in one of the UN countries that is pushing this resolution.

I don't trust our govornment with monopoly control of the internet... why should they?

"I highly recommend that the US resign from the UN and see how long it holds together without our monetary support." The problem is that the US doesn't pay their dues at the UN (unless this has change in the last few years). They have refused to pay the required dues because they feel that they aren't given enough of a say in the operations of the UN. That is why I have always found it quite funny when the US complains that the UN is ineffectual. Maybe if they would pay their dues and give the UN the finances they need to do their job things would get done. Again I must state that I am basing this on old information. A quick search provided these links: http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh21.htm http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2005/06/deja_vu_on _un_d.html http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/18/un.reform/ http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/08/17/12711.htm l If this has changed and the US is now meeting its financial obligation please disreguard this post.

Is it too much to ask of our (U.S.) armed forces that when they invade foreign lands they adhere to the Geneva Conventions?

This article raises interesting legal questions about the looting of Baghdad's National Museum.

Another poster has pointed out the fallacy of the bogus either/or. Give it up. Nobody forced the U.S. to go to war or occupy Iraq, and many long-standing allies advised against it, but since they went ahead and did it anyway they have some responsibility for maintaining law and order and not destroying a people's cultural heritage. You probably believe that the U.S. and U.K. aren't genocidal, delusional bullies determined to destroy the Arab people, but the rest of the world isn't so sure.