The International Court Of Justice V. The Liberty Of The United States
The International Court of Justice ruled in early 2004 that the United States violated the “rights” of Mexican citizens because we did not grant them their privilege to consult their home country and the arresting officers did not tell them they had that right. This “right” was supposedly created by the 1963 Vienna Convention. President Bush refused them that decision saying the cases were a sovereignty issue and the ICJ should be weary of allowing itself be used as a criminal appeals court.
The Mexicans in question are convicted murderers and Mexico is against the death penalty. Evidence I wrote about earlier also seems to indicate they covet at least parts of the United States which they say we stole from them in the Mexican American War. They hope that if they make the process more burdensome that we will rule according to their laws in the United States and it has worked in the past.
Treaty law is below all legislative law as Congress has the right to declare war and thus break treaties within the federal jurisdiction. Outside Federal jurisdiction Treaty law is not binding and so states do not have to go by it. The ICJ assumes otherwise. The United States Constitution is not an absolute protection because activist federal judges ignore it and thus make their own arbitrary judgments law.
In addition to ruling against the establishment of justice the ICJ also ruled against a country providing for their common defense. Israel has decided to build a wall to protect them from Palestinian barbarians much like we have decided to protect ourselves from an invasion from Mexico. The ruling was that the wall was damaging to the Palestinians and Israel was ordered to pay restitution as well as tear the wall down and stop building any more. They were also ordered to change their laws regarding the wall.
This paper argues that in disregarding these rulings the international community is undemanding the legitimacy of the ICJ. That is good because ruling that are corrupt, need to be defied and shows why the United States does not want to be under the authority of any world organization.
The Mexicans in question are convicted murderers and Mexico is against the death penalty. Evidence I wrote about earlier also seems to indicate they covet at least parts of the United States which they say we stole from them in the Mexican American War. They hope that if they make the process more burdensome that we will rule according to their laws in the United States and it has worked in the past.
Treaty law is below all legislative law as Congress has the right to declare war and thus break treaties within the federal jurisdiction. Outside Federal jurisdiction Treaty law is not binding and so states do not have to go by it. The ICJ assumes otherwise. The United States Constitution is not an absolute protection because activist federal judges ignore it and thus make their own arbitrary judgments law.
In addition to ruling against the establishment of justice the ICJ also ruled against a country providing for their common defense. Israel has decided to build a wall to protect them from Palestinian barbarians much like we have decided to protect ourselves from an invasion from Mexico. The ruling was that the wall was damaging to the Palestinians and Israel was ordered to pay restitution as well as tear the wall down and stop building any more. They were also ordered to change their laws regarding the wall.
This paper argues that in disregarding these rulings the international community is undemanding the legitimacy of the ICJ. That is good because ruling that are corrupt, need to be defied and shows why the United States does not want to be under the authority of any world organization.
posted by Kerwin | 9:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home