Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by SmokinP, Aug 16, 2017.
So still, just shitting on free speech and shutting down things you don't want to hear is all I read from that.
Free speech is only limited if you're speech is promoting violence towards an individual or group, or when used to slander. I'm sure if hate speech was covered the Nazis wouldn't have gotten a permit to assemble.
that picture is nice and alll, don't think un resolutions outweigh the united states constitution. If it does you just brought to light a whole lot about the attempted globalist takeover.
it doesn't override the constitution is the simple answer.
Does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights override the United States Constitution?
Not in US courts. It would be more accurate to say the UDHR overrides nothing and is not US law. It is a nonbinding UN General Assembly resolution; while it is very powerful persuasive authority and much is customary international law, it is persuasive authority only. See Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692.
The US has ratified the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, which unlike the UDHR is a treaty, meaning that is a legal obligation for the US. However, the ratification was subject to many reservations and declarations, whose net effect is that the ICCPR is not in and of itself enforceable in US courts. The US considers the US Constitution to provide the rights in question, and basically assumes no further obligations.
Even if it was possible to enforce the ICCPR in US court directly, Reid v. Covert established that the Constitution overrides treaties in US court. While as a matter of international law treaties override domestic law, this is not necessarily enforceable in domestic court.
nice try though spliff
Okay, I'll try this one more time.
Is that an internet board?
The ACLU says different. As does good ole Wiki.
"The U.S. ratified the ICCPR in 1992. Upon ratification, the ICCPR became the "supreme law of the land" under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives acceded treaties the status of federal law. The U.S. must comply with and implement the provisions of the treaty just as it would any other domestic law."
FAQ: The Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR)
the aclu says different. Wow, thats surprising that a left wing liberal organization would want to side with globalist rules as opposed to the ones written by our founders. So surprising. I don't care about what the ACLU says, I care about the actual law. What I provided shows that it is not a law, and it is not enforceable in a court of law.
We know, jman.
Antifa shows up to any event they disagree with knowing things will turn violent. They bring homemade weapons including biological & chemical weapons.
You know what I do if I don't agree with an event? I don't attend it or even give it acknowledgment/credit.
Medellín returned to the U.S. courts to enforce the holding, seeking the review and reconsideration called for by the ICJ. The Texas courts refused—in part on the grounds that the ICJ’s decision was not directly enforceable in domestic courts. The U.S. Supreme Court surprised many observers by agreeing. In Medellín v. Texas, 11 the Court reasoned that the treaties granting jurisdiction to the ICJ were non-self-executing and thus not enforceable unless implemented into law by Congress. They were, in other words, among those treaties the legislature must execute.12 Congress, of course, had not passed implementing legislation—p
I find it interesting that you invoke the ICCPR, as half the limitations you mention in it have been raped on national television by the Left in recent years over and over.
"libel, slander, obscenity, fighting words (punch all nazis!), right to privacy, public security".
Is that really the legislature you of all people want to stand on when arguing politics?
There is no context to this wall of text. Are you trying to conflate all treaties with the ICCPR? Or are you saying this quote is about the ICCPR?
this case is called a precedence. it was found that a UN resolution does NOT override the US constitution.
People who think a UN resolution would override the US Constitution on major American issues on US soil, live in a fantasy wonderland, or are actively looking to hand over sovereignty.
I am kind of dumbfounded by that response honestly. It doesn't make any sense that someone would advocate for the UN to rewrite our constitution. Our document is what all the other documents are based on.
Does this go for any and all UN policies? I'll look more in depth at it, thanks for the link actually! The point remains all speech isn't protected, even under the first amendment, even without the ICCPR.
I'm dumbfounded that in 2017 US people have to be explained why the 1st amendment matters, while they're trying to invent INTERNATIONAL justification for why it should be abridged/censored/altered so that less people can speak freely.
Like I said, no wonder classical liberals don't want anything to do with the regressive Left. Rubin nailed it.
"effective immediately" ominous words used in a tweet, give the foreboding that his proclamation is word of law. Continue making apologies and excuses for this megalomaniac at the peril of all mankind; if he can't win, he would have no problem burning everything to the ground.
yes, it was found, at least based on the few cases I read through quickly, that a UN resolution is not enforceable in domestic courts. This meddelin case is supposed to be the precedence for that ruling.