I'm questioning a lot of whatever else it was you were trying to say but I'm not sure it was coherent enough for my to understand properly. Maybe you have proven that you don't listen.
It's ok, I don't expect much from you. You are not supposed to understand anything I wrote in order to understand the law. Everything I wrote about the law was either because of the law or something that happened to the law and not the law in and of itself. What you are supposed to understand is the fucked mindset that sites behind the entire enterprise resulting from the law's passage, it's manipulations in order to be claimed constitutional, and it's impact on society due to it's implementation.
If you don't understand that, I can do nothing for you. Perhaps you could ask your mom to help you or something.
In case that doesn't sound right, it is because he hasn't retired yet, he will be retiring in the future. So officially, he is still a government spokesman until he actually does retire. And that is only a given if he doesn't make some deal to continue as one after retirement.
Umm... That is sort of the American left's mantra. The Constitution is a living document which meaning changes as society changes and holding it to strict interpretation is obsolete. Why would you think they would be concerned with protecting it or it's enforcement or the ramifications of it?
That is something the American right and/or people who actually give a fuck about this country simply do not understand. Hell, even many on the left who do care don't understand it but follow that ideology to some degree because it is convenient to their other goals. There are entities who care fuck all about the constitution, what limits it places on the government's abilities (unless they conveniently need them at the moment), as long as their version of whatever makes it through. Expecting them to care is simply foolish.
Seriously, we just had a law passed (PPACA) that couldn't survive on it's own merits constitutionally and the Supreme Court had to rewrite a penalty provision to become a tax penalty that completely bypasses the 5th amendment's due process of law clause in order to force it into compliance with the Constitution and the American Left are championing it as a great victory over the mean terrorist republicans. Despite 16 million people with insurance loosing that coverage due to the strict grandfather clause in the law, Despite massive increases in premiums for those who get to keep their insurance, despite companies dropping employee hours to avoid full time employees, despite companies dumping retirement coverage onto medicare and the exchanges, despite companies dumping spousal coverage if they work because they can get insurance elsewhere now, we have an administration that rewards it's political allies by giving unions and large companies waivers and delays but will not delay the mandate for the common man even though the exchanges are completely messed up right now. And you expect them to understand or care about anything other then their agenda.
Now stop bothering me, I gotta find out what Brittany is doing next.
Right, because when it is impossible to attack the message, attacking the messenger is all that is needed to discredit the message. Well, that only works in your ignorant circles.
Either the science speaks for itself or it is not science. Either way, It will be obvious. Let science happen and stop pretending it is a religion.
Not at all, the second point is a limit of reality share between the teo different techs. The first is an observation that neither problem or solution are all that different. So in effect, the second point only shows a practical limitation of the first. They work together in essence.
Its called a hypothesis and the science will either support it or refute it. That is how science works even if you do not like the hypothesis or the people wanting it tested.
Then let the science speak for itself. I mean seriously, if it is already being done then it will independently verify the know results and strengthen the argument fot AGW. If the science shows something different, then the models can be improved but at least it will be science driving it regardless of the motivation for the science. Iff the science doesn't happen because of politics, we will know it is politics.
I simply do not understand how a group can claim something is scietifically true and refuse to do svcience because the results might favor people who do not trust the svientific accuracy of that truth. Its like saying this lock id unpickable and never letting anyone try to pick it.
That should have been billion with a "b" not an m.
Of coursse if you bothered to know the numbers you would have seen it was a mistake and not posted as if the mistake invalidated everything thst was said. Or i could be wrong and you know but have no way to counter the premise without being intelectually dishonest
Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it any more true. Next, you'll tell me that the speed limit was never 55 because the federal government doesn't have the power to set speed limits.
Except the US constitution gives congress the power to do so specifically in article 1 section 8 To establish post offices and post roads;. It is hard to argue that any road a post office employees travels to either deliver mail or to move mail from one post office to another is not a post road. The best the federal government can can do otherwise is withholding funding if the states do not comply with what they want them to do and we saw that smacked down a bit in the Obamacare ruling which the court said withholding medicaid and medicare funding if the states refused to expand medicaid was unconstitutional.
Sorry, but 21 years of reality trumps your ideology.
And constitutional authority smacks your ideology in the face.
Treaties are binding on the US Law of the Land, and binding on the states of the union as members of the union, even if the feds can't pass a law to do it, they can sign a treaty to do it.
Wrong. All treaties have to be made in accordance with the constitution. If congress cannot make a law to do something, no treaty can either.
While there may be theoretical arguments for invalidating a properly ratified treaty, no such ruling has ever occurred. And until you are Chief Justice, your opinion means no more than mine. So asserting from false authority will never convince me.
Well, I was hoping rational thought and logic would play an important role in changing your mind but if you are insisting on closing your eyes and maintaining your beliefs, then I doubt there is anything left to discuss.
BTW, here are some parting shots you should consider.
Where the court purposely ignored provisions in a treaty and allowed the state of Texas to execute a prisoner of Mexican nationality against the wishes of the then President George W. Bush and international organizations.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. It takes two third of the house of representatives and two third of the senate to purpose a constitutional amendment and then three fourths of the states have to approve of it also before it happens. The senate cannot just say here is an amendment to the constitution, vote and have it amended if it passes by two thirds.
There is nothing in the Constitution that states that treaties may not be binding on the several states, and the states agreed to follow those rules, so I can't see any logical or legal argument for why you can't make a treaty that's unenforceable by the federal government, but requires the states to enact it.
Because you are under the mistaken impression that a treaty can be made in contradiction to the constitution and thereby change the constitution. Once you get past that flaw, you see exactly where the problem is.
You've presented nothing that contradicts that stance, but ran off on tangents. Treaties are The Law of the Land, and the states must abide by them.
Treaties that violate the Constitution are unconstitutional laws of the land. No law can remain unconstitutional even if it is supreme law of the land.
The Government simply cannot make a law or treaty that is unconstitutional and have it supersede the constitution. Otherwise the government could do away with the constitution altogether with only the president and two third the senate. Why would the framers intend to allow that when they require both houses and three fourths the states to amend the constitutions? Do you seriously think the framers were more concerned with limiting the influence of the states then they were foreign governments considering how this country was founded and all the provisions for the elected officials to be citizens and in some cases natural born citizens?
If you really thought about your position, you would realize how absurd it is.
I don't think you realize the costs of installing charging stations in parking lots. How do you get the power to the station? You rip up the parking lot or portions of it and run power cables to the station. You then have to repair and replace the surface all the while dealing without being able to access the lot or portions of the lot.
And that is if the building has enough electrical capacity coming into it to support the charging. If it is just a doctors office or dentist or something small, it may only have a 200 amp service with most of the amperage being needed to operate equipment inside the offices. If it is a larger building, the electrical system could still be restricted by the power consumption of what is being used. Larger building yet have complex electrical systems that are designed specifically for the expected loads and expanding them isn't exactly cheap.
So there are quite a bit more expense then just a charging stations and a few spare parts. There is a reason there isn't fuel pumps at parking spaces too. A lot of those reasons will transfer over to electrical charging stations.
Reduced availability of fossil fuels will not be here in our lifetime unless the government does something to make it happen.
That being said, I like the idea of electric cars but do believe they are niche markets currently and the push to make them more is premature. They should be sold to people with short commutes that can make round trips on a single charge as secondary vehicles with home chargers in place. Perhaps a payment system and ability to extend the home chargers to the curb would be the best start.
Most households that have cars have multiple vehicles. A second vehicle that is EV might not be as much of an issue as your only vehicle being an EV and it will end up increasing the demand for remote charging which the market can bear.
Well, one space per lot is a bit inefficient. If the lot has parking side by side, you can put the charging station in the center of two spots and service more then one spot from the station. IF parking is two spaces deep, that one charger can service 4 spots in the same configuration (two in the first space and two in the spaces accessible from the other lane of traffic).
You just need the charger to be capable of handling the load and have the number of connections reasonable for the type of spaces.
The problem with constant expansion is that you typically have to tear up portions of the parking lot and lay cables in the ground then repave the lot. This is really expensive. You might be able to save some by expanding the rest above ground but that becomes difficult and costly to do safely too. and of course it requires enough capacity to be in place in the initial layout else you will end up with multiple spaces that can only charge part of the spaces at once. It really is not as easy as plugging in an extension cord and power strip.
Just like it is impossible to add gas stations or fuel pumps to meet demand?
DO you expect all charging stations to have ample room for every vehicle to pull up and charge at the same time? Here is a hint, they will still be limited in space by the length of the cars more then the technology to deliver the fuel or the charge. Little to nothing would be different to how we get fuel already except the time it takes to fuel/charge.
The interstate highway system was a military defense project that benefited society as well. It was how the massive costs were allowed to happen and for the first time, it was supposed to be paid by the users of the system in the form of a tax placed on the fuels used in the vehicles that used them. In a way, it is no different then the rail systems except that the right of ways were usually granted to private corporations who were later forced to share or allow access to competitors.
It means that all treaties made must be constitutional. The United States has no authority to make any law or treaty in violation of the constitution.
Yes, part of being constitutional is properly signed and ratified but it cannot require non-citizens be eligible for elected office, it cannot require certain speech or religion to be forbidden, it cannot be in violation of the constitution in any way shape or form. All treaties have to be made under the authority of the United States and the United State's authority is specifically limited by the constitution that constitute the United States of America.
The war powers act contradicts the Constitution in allowing the president to wage war without congress acting too.
The problem with this line of thinking is that common defense treaties as well as the war powers act actually have constitutional support. What they all say is that the defense of the ally is so crucial to the defense and security of the United States, we will treat an attack on one as an attack on the other. Nobody will legitimately claim the president does not have the power to defend the nation from invasion. We have used this idea or concept to use force abroad more than 100 times but declared war in only five cases: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American and Spanish-American Wars, and World Wars I and II. Congress however, supports and authorizes our use of force like with Afghanistan and Iraq which has no formal declaration of war but is recognized as such.
The fact that common defense treaties were never challenged does not mean they changed the US constitution. It is because it didn't need to change the US constitution. You are correct though, Reality trumps ideology every time. I just wish you could realize that.
No the US signed a treaty that said it wouldnt discriminate against other countries with respect to trade. And then tried to do just that.
No it did not.
The WTO interpreted the state's sovereign rights to be under the control of the federal government in which it is not.
If the US wants to ban gambling, then ban gambling. The WTO wouldnt care at all.
The US did ban gambling and has had a ban on gambling since the 1942 wire fraud act. The problem is that US law doesn't intrude the sovereignty of the states within the US unless the constittuion gives it jurisdiction to do so. The US constitution specifically denies this ability which is why a state can defy federal law and allow gambling within the state. That contention right there is where the WTO got hung up. It said because the feds allow the states to have gambling, the US allows gambling. The problem is the US cannot force the states to either stop allowing gambling or to allow gambling. The feds cannot make any law saying gambling is legal or illegal and force the states to obey it. It can only prohibit gambling across state lines.
If the US is going to allow gambling, then they are supposed to allow competition from foerign countries that have also signed up to the treaty under the terms of that treaty or suffer the penalties.
The US doesn't allow gambling. States within the US do. There is a clear distinction there. The US federal government, even though it appears differently sometimes, does not have an all encompassing authority over the states.
Why is this so hard for people to understand.
My guess is because people like you have no clue to the political structure of the US nor the situation at hand and think it is like any other tin pot dictatorship where a leader proclaims something and everyone in the territory is all the sudden subject to it. The US isn't that way. The treaty in question says nothing about gambling, it is a provision inside the treaty that had been interpreted to include gambling after the fact, and the lack of control the US government has over the states is being used to show the US isn't enforcing something they have no power to enforce.
The country wouldn't go into default unless the administration directed the treasury secretary to pay funds on things other then the debt.
The US takes in a little over 200 billion a month in tax revenue and only needs a little under 20 million a month to service the debt. While the 200 billion a month would not be enough to fund the government fully, the US constitution would supersede law requiring funding and our debt would necessarily be paid first then whatever was left over would have to be a judgement call by the administration and members within it to what else gets funded.
Congress can not pass any law that is in violation of the US constitution and so all laws must be interpreted within the limits of the US constitution. If congress failed to provide funding or increase the debt, all laws with automatic funding built in would have to be interpreted consistent with the US constitution which means that they couldn't be enforced during a time no funding was available to them.
The only reason the the government shut down and the debt limit was in question is because Obama directed the democrats to not negotiate on Obamacare. Negotiations over the debt limit and budgets is something that has historically happened for more then a century. You cannot legitimately blame this on one party as the senate had individual spending bills passed by the house in front of it and refused to take them up.
If the US government can not enforce a treaty, they should not have signed it.
The Treaty never included online gambling when they signed it. That was something argued to exist in an interpretation of a clause well after the US signed the treaty. When the US signed the treaty, online gambling didn't exist and what little form that could pass as online gambling was outlawed by the 1941 wire fraud act.
If international bodies started to take into account the special needs of individual countries we could throw away all treaties. There is always some argument why this one country or that one does need special treatment.
Bullshit. It is common practice to do this. It is common practice to have signing statements to treaties and the whole nine yards.
You learn some strange math over there in 'merica. There are 12 monarchies according to you. How many countries are in Europe? (Hint: There are 28 member states of the European Union, and the EU is only part of Europe). Also, many of the biggest countries in Europe (Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Russia) are definitely not monarchies, so the vast majority of people in Europe do not live in a monarchy. So how do you justify your statement?
There is nothing strange about the math. There are currently 12 countries in Europe considered a monarchy. Almost all countries in Europe were a monarchy at one time. The comment about 12 remaining wasn't to show all of Europe is under a monarchy, it was to show how little separation from those times it is. People in Europe are subjects of the government, not the government being subjects of the people. There is a fundamental difference in that statement, can you tell me what it is?
Show me one treaty under the WTO that specifically says online casinos or gambling in it. What's that, you cannot? Is it because there isn't one and this isn't as cut and dry as you pretend it to be?
The bottom line is that a provision in a treaty in place before online gambling was possible had been reinterpreted to include online gambling and at the very minimum, the US should have had the opportunity to exempt itself from the new interpretations of existing provisions. However, that did not happen and the new interpretations were then used to claim that because some states allow gambling within the states, the federal ban on gambling which had existed since 1941 and well before the treaty was created, somehow violated the treaty.
Also, there will be little to no repercussions because the US is a founding member of the WTO with veto power which is why only antigua which has nothing but US tourism to lose is the only country to fight this provision. They also did it at the request of a Texas lawyer who was upset that his friend had been jailed for money laundering in connection to operating illegal online casinos in the US.
To me it seems like the US has a constitutional problem. The US government appears to sign treaties that they don't have the mandate to enforce.
The US never signed any treaty that said they would allow or disallow gambling. There is none whatsoever at all that says so.
What happened is that a provision of a treaty that existed before online gambling was around or common had been interpreted to include online gambling after it became common which kicked off the problems with the feds banning it and some states allowing it within their state borders.
There is no constitutional problem, there is a treaty problem where the US should at minimum have the ability to exempt themselves from the new interpretations of the treaty as is customary in contract law. This can easily be done with a signing statement but it is somewhat more difficult when an article is already signed then reinterpreted after the fact.
Except that the US would have to restart the very slow and exhaustive application process from scratch...
NO, the treaties in the WTO are not the collective WTO. The US could leave _a_ treaty and rejoin _that_ treaty without leaving the WTO, There are treaties right now that members are not all signatory. It would be no different other then a final clarification.
In other words Antigua (or one of the many other countries the US has pissed off) could keep the US out indefinitely:-)
I see now why you posted such nonsense anonymously.
Slashdot Mirror
What does Bush have to do with it?
I'm questioning a lot of whatever else it was you were trying to say but I'm not sure it was coherent enough for my to understand properly. Maybe you have proven that you don't listen.
It's ok, I don't expect much from you. You are not supposed to understand anything I wrote in order to understand the law. Everything I wrote about the law was either because of the law or something that happened to the law and not the law in and of itself. What you are supposed to understand is the fucked mindset that sites behind the entire enterprise resulting from the law's passage, it's manipulations in order to be claimed constitutional, and it's impact on society due to it's implementation.
If you don't understand that, I can do nothing for you. Perhaps you could ask your mom to help you or something.
He has retired next year.
In case that doesn't sound right, it is because he hasn't retired yet, he will be retiring in the future. So officially, he is still a government spokesman until he actually does retire. And that is only a given if he doesn't make some deal to continue as one after retirement.
Umm... That is sort of the American left's mantra. The Constitution is a living document which meaning changes as society changes and holding it to strict interpretation is obsolete. Why would you think they would be concerned with protecting it or it's enforcement or the ramifications of it?
That is something the American right and/or people who actually give a fuck about this country simply do not understand. Hell, even many on the left who do care don't understand it but follow that ideology to some degree because it is convenient to their other goals. There are entities who care fuck all about the constitution, what limits it places on the government's abilities (unless they conveniently need them at the moment), as long as their version of whatever makes it through. Expecting them to care is simply foolish.
Seriously, we just had a law passed (PPACA) that couldn't survive on it's own merits constitutionally and the Supreme Court had to rewrite a penalty provision to become a tax penalty that completely bypasses the 5th amendment's due process of law clause in order to force it into compliance with the Constitution and the American Left are championing it as a great victory over the mean terrorist republicans. Despite 16 million people with insurance loosing that coverage due to the strict grandfather clause in the law, Despite massive increases in premiums for those who get to keep their insurance, despite companies dropping employee hours to avoid full time employees, despite companies dumping retirement coverage onto medicare and the exchanges, despite companies dumping spousal coverage if they work because they can get insurance elsewhere now, we have an administration that rewards it's political allies by giving unions and large companies waivers and delays but will not delay the mandate for the common man even though the exchanges are completely messed up right now. And you expect them to understand or care about anything other then their agenda.
Now stop bothering me, I gotta find out what Brittany is doing next.
Right, because when it is impossible to attack the message, attacking the messenger is all that is needed to discredit the message. Well, that only works in your ignorant circles.
Either the science speaks for itself or it is not science. Either way, It will be obvious. Let science happen and stop pretending it is a religion.
Not at all, the second point is a limit of reality share between the teo different techs. The first is an observation that neither problem or solution are all that different. So in effect, the second point only shows a practical limitation of the first. They work together in essence.
Its called a hypothesis and the science will either support it or refute it. That is how science works even if you do not like the hypothesis or the people wanting it tested.
Then let the science speak for itself. I mean seriously, if it is already being done then it will independently verify the know results and strengthen the argument fot AGW. If the science shows something different, then the models can be improved but at least it will be science driving it regardless of the motivation for the science. Iff the science doesn't happen because of politics, we will know it is politics.
I simply do not understand how a group can claim something is scietifically true and refuse to do svcience because the results might favor people who do not trust the svientific accuracy of that truth. Its like saying this lock id unpickable and never letting anyone try to pick it.
That should have been billion with a "b" not an m.
Of coursse if you bothered to know the numbers you would have seen it was a mistake and not posted as if the mistake invalidated everything thst was said. Or i could be wrong and you know but have no way to counter the premise without being intelectually dishonest
Except the US constitution gives congress the power to do so specifically in article 1 section 8 To establish post offices and post roads;. It is hard to argue that any road a post office employees travels to either deliver mail or to move mail from one post office to another is not a post road. The best the federal government can can do otherwise is withholding funding if the states do not comply with what they want them to do and we saw that smacked down a bit in the Obamacare ruling which the court said withholding medicaid and medicare funding if the states refused to expand medicaid was unconstitutional.
And constitutional authority smacks your ideology in the face.
Wrong. All treaties have to be made in accordance with the constitution. If congress cannot make a law to do something, no treaty can either.
Well, I was hoping rational thought and logic would play an important role in changing your mind but if you are insisting on closing your eyes and maintaining your beliefs, then I doubt there is anything left to discuss.
BTW, here are some parting shots you should consider.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
Where the court specifically placed the constitution above any international treaty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medellin_v._Texas
Where the court purposely ignored provisions in a treaty and allowed the state of Texas to execute a prisoner of Mexican nationality against the wishes of the then President George W. Bush and international organizations.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. It takes two third of the house of representatives and two third of the senate to purpose a constitutional amendment and then three fourths of the states have to approve of it also before it happens. The senate cannot just say here is an amendment to the constitution, vote and have it amended if it passes by two thirds.
Because you are under the mistaken impression that a treaty can be made in contradiction to the constitution and thereby change the constitution. Once you get past that flaw, you see exactly where the problem is.
Treaties that violate the Constitution are unconstitutional laws of the land. No law can remain unconstitutional even if it is supreme law of the land.
The Government simply cannot make a law or treaty that is unconstitutional and have it supersede the constitution. Otherwise the government could do away with the constitution altogether with only the president and two third the senate. Why would the framers intend to allow that when they require both houses and three fourths the states to amend the constitutions? Do you seriously think the framers were more concerned with limiting the influence of the states then they were foreign governments considering how this country was founded and all the provisions for the elected officials to be citizens and in some cases natural born citizens?
If you really thought about your position, you would realize how absurd it is.
I don't think you realize the costs of installing charging stations in parking lots. How do you get the power to the station? You rip up the parking lot or portions of it and run power cables to the station. You then have to repair and replace the surface all the while dealing without being able to access the lot or portions of the lot.
And that is if the building has enough electrical capacity coming into it to support the charging. If it is just a doctors office or dentist or something small, it may only have a 200 amp service with most of the amperage being needed to operate equipment inside the offices. If it is a larger building, the electrical system could still be restricted by the power consumption of what is being used. Larger building yet have complex electrical systems that are designed specifically for the expected loads and expanding them isn't exactly cheap.
So there are quite a bit more expense then just a charging stations and a few spare parts. There is a reason there isn't fuel pumps at parking spaces too. A lot of those reasons will transfer over to electrical charging stations.
Reduced availability of fossil fuels will not be here in our lifetime unless the government does something to make it happen.
That being said, I like the idea of electric cars but do believe they are niche markets currently and the push to make them more is premature. They should be sold to people with short commutes that can make round trips on a single charge as secondary vehicles with home chargers in place. Perhaps a payment system and ability to extend the home chargers to the curb would be the best start.
Most households that have cars have multiple vehicles. A second vehicle that is EV might not be as much of an issue as your only vehicle being an EV and it will end up increasing the demand for remote charging which the market can bear.
Well, one space per lot is a bit inefficient. If the lot has parking side by side, you can put the charging station in the center of two spots and service more then one spot from the station. IF parking is two spaces deep, that one charger can service 4 spots in the same configuration (two in the first space and two in the spaces accessible from the other lane of traffic).
You just need the charger to be capable of handling the load and have the number of connections reasonable for the type of spaces.
The problem with constant expansion is that you typically have to tear up portions of the parking lot and lay cables in the ground then repave the lot. This is really expensive. You might be able to save some by expanding the rest above ground but that becomes difficult and costly to do safely too. and of course it requires enough capacity to be in place in the initial layout else you will end up with multiple spaces that can only charge part of the spaces at once. It really is not as easy as plugging in an extension cord and power strip.
Just like it is impossible to add gas stations or fuel pumps to meet demand?
DO you expect all charging stations to have ample room for every vehicle to pull up and charge at the same time? Here is a hint, they will still be limited in space by the length of the cars more then the technology to deliver the fuel or the charge. Little to nothing would be different to how we get fuel already except the time it takes to fuel/charge.
He was being facetious.
The interstate highway system was a military defense project that benefited society as well. It was how the massive costs were allowed to happen and for the first time, it was supposed to be paid by the users of the system in the form of a tax placed on the fuels used in the vehicles that used them. In a way, it is no different then the rail systems except that the right of ways were usually granted to private corporations who were later forced to share or allow access to competitors.
It means that all treaties made must be constitutional. The United States has no authority to make any law or treaty in violation of the constitution.
Yes, part of being constitutional is properly signed and ratified but it cannot require non-citizens be eligible for elected office, it cannot require certain speech or religion to be forbidden, it cannot be in violation of the constitution in any way shape or form. All treaties have to be made under the authority of the United States and the United State's authority is specifically limited by the constitution that constitute the United States of America.
The war powers act contradicts the Constitution in allowing the president to wage war without congress acting too.
The problem with this line of thinking is that common defense treaties as well as the war powers act actually have constitutional support. What they all say is that the defense of the ally is so crucial to the defense and security of the United States, we will treat an attack on one as an attack on the other. Nobody will legitimately claim the president does not have the power to defend the nation from invasion. We have used this idea or concept to use force abroad more than 100 times but declared war in only five cases: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American and Spanish-American Wars, and World Wars I and II. Congress however, supports and authorizes our use of force like with Afghanistan and Iraq which has no formal declaration of war but is recognized as such.
The fact that common defense treaties were never challenged does not mean they changed the US constitution. It is because it didn't need to change the US constitution. You are correct though, Reality trumps ideology every time. I just wish you could realize that.
Yes, I do know so little about Ayn Rand. What is your point? I already said I'm not the libertarian you think I am.
No it did not.
The WTO interpreted the state's sovereign rights to be under the control of the federal government in which it is not.
The US did ban gambling and has had a ban on gambling since the 1942 wire fraud act. The problem is that US law doesn't intrude the sovereignty of the states within the US unless the constittuion gives it jurisdiction to do so. The US constitution specifically denies this ability which is why a state can defy federal law and allow gambling within the state. That contention right there is where the WTO got hung up. It said because the feds allow the states to have gambling, the US allows gambling. The problem is the US cannot force the states to either stop allowing gambling or to allow gambling. The feds cannot make any law saying gambling is legal or illegal and force the states to obey it. It can only prohibit gambling across state lines.
The US doesn't allow gambling. States within the US do. There is a clear distinction there. The US federal government, even though it appears differently sometimes, does not have an all encompassing authority over the states.
My guess is because people like you have no clue to the political structure of the US nor the situation at hand and think it is like any other tin pot dictatorship where a leader proclaims something and everyone in the territory is all the sudden subject to it. The US isn't that way. The treaty in question says nothing about gambling, it is a provision inside the treaty that had been interpreted to include gambling after the fact, and the lack of control the US government has over the states is being used to show the US isn't enforcing something they have no power to enforce.
The country wouldn't go into default unless the administration directed the treasury secretary to pay funds on things other then the debt.
The US takes in a little over 200 billion a month in tax revenue and only needs a little under 20 million a month to service the debt. While the 200 billion a month would not be enough to fund the government fully, the US constitution would supersede law requiring funding and our debt would necessarily be paid first then whatever was left over would have to be a judgement call by the administration and members within it to what else gets funded.
Congress can not pass any law that is in violation of the US constitution and so all laws must be interpreted within the limits of the US constitution. If congress failed to provide funding or increase the debt, all laws with automatic funding built in would have to be interpreted consistent with the US constitution which means that they couldn't be enforced during a time no funding was available to them.
The only reason the the government shut down and the debt limit was in question is because Obama directed the democrats to not negotiate on Obamacare. Negotiations over the debt limit and budgets is something that has historically happened for more then a century. You cannot legitimately blame this on one party as the senate had individual spending bills passed by the house in front of it and refused to take them up.
The Treaty never included online gambling when they signed it. That was something argued to exist in an interpretation of a clause well after the US signed the treaty. When the US signed the treaty, online gambling didn't exist and what little form that could pass as online gambling was outlawed by the 1941 wire fraud act.
Bullshit. It is common practice to do this. It is common practice to have signing statements to treaties and the whole nine yards.
There is nothing strange about the math. There are currently 12 countries in Europe considered a monarchy. Almost all countries in Europe were a monarchy at one time. The comment about 12 remaining wasn't to show all of Europe is under a monarchy, it was to show how little separation from those times it is. People in Europe are subjects of the government, not the government being subjects of the people. There is a fundamental difference in that statement, can you tell me what it is?
Show me one treaty under the WTO that specifically says online casinos or gambling in it. What's that, you cannot? Is it because there isn't one and this isn't as cut and dry as you pretend it to be?
The bottom line is that a provision in a treaty in place before online gambling was possible had been reinterpreted to include online gambling and at the very minimum, the US should have had the opportunity to exempt itself from the new interpretations of existing provisions. However, that did not happen and the new interpretations were then used to claim that because some states allow gambling within the states, the federal ban on gambling which had existed since 1941 and well before the treaty was created, somehow violated the treaty.
Also, there will be little to no repercussions because the US is a founding member of the WTO with veto power which is why only antigua which has nothing but US tourism to lose is the only country to fight this provision. They also did it at the request of a Texas lawyer who was upset that his friend had been jailed for money laundering in connection to operating illegal online casinos in the US.
The US never signed any treaty that said they would allow or disallow gambling. There is none whatsoever at all that says so.
What happened is that a provision of a treaty that existed before online gambling was around or common had been interpreted to include online gambling after it became common which kicked off the problems with the feds banning it and some states allowing it within their state borders.
There is no constitutional problem, there is a treaty problem where the US should at minimum have the ability to exempt themselves from the new interpretations of the treaty as is customary in contract law. This can easily be done with a signing statement but it is somewhat more difficult when an article is already signed then reinterpreted after the fact.
NO, the treaties in the WTO are not the collective WTO. The US could leave _a_ treaty and rejoin _that_ treaty without leaving the WTO, There are treaties right now that members are not all signatory. It would be no different other then a final clarification.
I see now why you posted such nonsense anonymously.