Double standard on violence

Message boards : Politics : Double standard on violence
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · Next

AuthorMessage
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1548327 - Posted: 27 Jul 2014, 7:21:18 UTC - in response to Message 1548290.  

To Gary Charpentier and Мишель:

The below is the attribution regarding International Treaty's DO NOT apply if they infringe upon Sovereign States Rights. Re: Mexican National Executed, despite International Treaty's signed by The Federal Government.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/01/22/264900795/scheduled-execution-of-mexican-national-revives-diplomatic-row

Guess this 'cop' knows more than you give him credit for.

Note: This is just one of many SCOTUS Rulings regarding my correct knowledge of The United States Constitution.

Again, wrong.

What actually happened was that Texas broke international law. The death row inmate even went to the ICJ which ordered that Texas had to redo the trial because Texas broke international law. Texas refused and said that the ICJ had no jurisdiction in domestic courts, even though the US had signed a treaty that said it did. It went to the SCOTUS who said that the treaty that would give the ICJ that kind of authority was non-self-executing, meaning congress had to implement it into law before this treaty could be enforced and the ICJ ruling would be valid in domestic courts as well.

Nowhere did it say that any part of that treaty was void because it clashed with state law or the states sovereign rights.
ID: 1548327 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1548341 - Posted: 27 Jul 2014, 7:45:50 UTC - in response to Message 1548290.  

To Gary Charpentier and Мишель:

The below is the attribution regarding International Treaty's DO NOT apply if they infringe upon Sovereign States Rights. Re: Mexican National Executed, despite International Treaty's signed by The Federal Government.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/01/22/264900795/scheduled-execution-of-mexican-national-revives-diplomatic-row

Guess this 'cop' knows more than you give him credit for.

Note: This is just one of many SCOTUS Rulings regarding my correct knowledge of The United States Constitution.

His appeal
http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/2010/19745.html
In the only claim raised in his third subsequent application, applicant asserts that he is mentally retarded and so he cannot be executed following the Supreme Court's decision in Atkins.
...
We have reviewed this third subsequent application and find that the application does not contain sufficient specific facts establishing that the factual basis of this claim was not ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence on or before the filing date of the previous application
...
The application fails to meet the dictates of Article 11.071, 5(a). Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Art. 11.071, 5(c).

also
http://www.leagle.com/decision/in%20txco%2020100609634


I see your confusion, it is a bit of reading comprehension ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/edgar-tamayo-lethal-injection_n_4644897.html
Tamayo was among more than four dozen Mexican nationals awaiting execution in the U.S. when the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, ruled in 2004 they hadn't been advised properly of their consular rights. The Supreme Court subsequently said hearings urged by the international court in those inmates' cases could be mandated only if Congress implemented legislation to do so.

So SCOTS only said that an ICJ ruling wasn't binding and the USA never implemented the ICJ treaty ... not the Vienna treaty.

if you read the entire case history, admittedly hard because most of it was ordered not published ...
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/tamayo1363.htm
you will see the only court he raised the Vienna treaty with was Texas courts. In Federal court he raised the ICJ issue. The AEDPA barred him as his lawyer brought and then dropped the issue in an earlier appeal. Basically he had ineffective legal consul, but 99.99% of executed inmates do.
ID: 1548341 · Report as offensive
Batter Up
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,860,347
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1548396 - Posted: 27 Jul 2014, 11:52:22 UTC - in response to Message 1548323.  

Interstate commerce wasn't cited by the court. And check any legal source, they all say that this case confirmed that international treaties can override state laws.
Мишель your posting style has changed; it's more confrontational with a bit of thought behind it. I like it. That said you are still wrong. The birds do not belong to the state of Missouri they are just passing though.

I love Internet constitutional law debates in the Internet. The Constitution says whatever the SCOTUS want it to say at a point in time. The Constitution said slaves are property and blacks were 1/2 a person. The Constitution said separate drinking fountains were OK then they were not.

Maybe you should worry about Putin killing a few hundred Dutch men women and children instead of who birds belong to.
ID: 1548396 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1548501 - Posted: 27 Jul 2014, 15:54:29 UTC - in response to Message 1548441.  

Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 (1956) wrote:
"...No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government ... The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government

While I know Texas considers itself special, I did not know they were the "National Government."
Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890) wrote:
a brief reference will be had to the laws of Maryland in force on the 27th of February, 1801, which were on that day declared by act of Congress to be in force in the District of Columbia.

Something seems to have changed as it appears foreign nationals can own land in DC today. Oh, Congress "National Government" must have changed a law.

Quoting cases from 1890 always requires an extensive search to be sure they haven't been invalidated. As Wiki calls Reid v. Covert landmark, what happened to Geofroy v. Riggs?

Constitutional Law was my favorite course in College. The problem with this type of interchange, is that a very complicated subject, with all its nuances, cannot really be addressed.

Yes.
Just keep on saying I am incorrect.

Since the issue was never raised in this case from Texas ...

I suspect at some point this particular issue will get to SCOTUS and they may find that the requirement is fine in the same manner they decided Miranda and right to counsel.
ID: 1548501 · Report as offensive
Batter Up
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,860,347
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1548520 - Posted: 27 Jul 2014, 16:28:09 UTC - in response to Message 1548501.  

I suspect at some point this particular issue will get to SCOTUS and they may find that the requirement is fine in the same manner they decided Miranda and right to counsel.
The only thing Miranda did was make it mandatory to inform those under arrest of their right to remain silent and have a lawyer do the talking. Those rights were always there.

Of course the police can still forcibly take blood from an arrestee and have one's own blood testify against her.
ID: 1548520 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1548535 - Posted: 27 Jul 2014, 17:14:15 UTC - in response to Message 1548512.  

When reposting an attribution: Please don't post a partial section, because other parts clarify, and expand the partial. The rest of the attribution goes further than 'The National Government' and then applies it to ANOTHER Governments (States). Thereby making a 'Partial' Post incorrect in its interpretation.

However they did not rely on that in making the decision in Geofroy v. Riggs, they relied on an act of congress.

You may wish to read J.C.F. CHIRAC v. the Lessee of A.F. CHIRAC et. al. 15 U.S. 259 (1817) and HAUENSTEIN v. LYNHAM 100 U.S. 483 Also Harvard Law review Volume 33, page 285.

It was not a question in Reid v. Covert
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1955/1955_701_2
Question

Do American citizens abroad retain the rights granted to them by the Bill of Rights thus rendering Article 2(11) of the United State Code of Military Justice unconstitutional?

Last time I checked the UCMJ was a federal law.
ID: 1548535 · Report as offensive
Profile James Sotherden
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 10436
Credit: 110,373,059
RAC: 54
United States
Message 1548779 - Posted: 28 Jul 2014, 4:59:39 UTC - in response to Message 1548768.  

When reposting an attribution: Please don't post a partial section, because other parts clarify, and expand the partial. The rest of the attribution goes further than 'The National Government' and then applies it to ANOTHER Governments (States). Thereby making a 'Partial' Post incorrect in its interpretation.

However they did not rely on that in making the decision in Geofroy v. Riggs, they relied on an act of congress.

You may wish to read J.C.F. CHIRAC v. the Lessee of A.F. CHIRAC et. al. 15 U.S. 259 (1817) and HAUENSTEIN v. LYNHAM 100 U.S. 483 Also Harvard Law review Volume 33, page 285.

It was not a question in Reid v. Covert
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1955/1955_701_2
Question

Do American citizens abroad retain the rights granted to them by the Bill of Rights thus rendering Article 2(11) of the United State Code of Military Justice unconstitutional?

Last time I checked the UCMJ was a federal law.

SCOTUS has constantly ruled that Member's of The Armed Services, are NOT entirely protected, for many good reasons, by Constitutional Provisions.

When I was in the Air Force I found that reading the UCMJ made for some very fascinating reading.
[/quote]

Old James
ID: 1548779 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1548880 - Posted: 28 Jul 2014, 10:01:43 UTC - in response to Message 1548441.  
Last modified: 28 Jul 2014, 10:05:12 UTC

Wrong.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/1/case.html\

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert\

"...No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, 'This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;...' There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggests such a result.... It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights ‑ let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition ‑ to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot's Debates 1836 ed. pgs. 500, 519). In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."
"This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be

Another:

Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that,

"The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent."

Constitutional Law was my favorite course in College. The problem with this type of interchange, is that a very complicated subject, with all its nuances, cannot really be addressed.

Just keep on saying I am incorrect. It is not really important. My reply's would have to be many 1000 word, with attributions, posts. This is better left to a Friendly discussion over coffee (beer?)

Hmm, did you read what those cases were about and what our discussion was? Both these cases say that a treaty does not stand above the US constitution in a legal sense and that treaties cannot alter the constitution by removing or adding rights, changing the nature of the government, etc.

This discussion started with you saying that international treaties can be ignored by individual states if they clash with state constitutions, because according to you, the Federal government literally has no power over the states. These two cases you cited do not prove any of that. Alright, granted, it does say that an international treaty cannot affect the territory of a state without its consent, or change the nature of its government. But that is still not even close to saying that international treaties are void if they clash with state laws or their constitution. As long as it does not affect their territorial integrity or the nature of their government, international treaties trump state law.
ID: 1548880 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1558704 - Posted: 18 Aug 2014, 13:31:34 UTC

ID: 1558704 · Report as offensive
Profile Wiggo
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 34744
Credit: 261,360,520
RAC: 489
Australia
Message 1562753 - Posted: 27 Aug 2014, 0:16:57 UTC

More stupidity from the great land of the gun. :-(

http://www.news.com.au/world/girl-nine-accidentally-kills-shooting-instructor-with-uzi-at-arizona-shooting-range/story-fndir2ev-1227038261240

AN Arizona shooting instructor was accidentally shot and killed while showing a nine-year-old girl how to use an automatic Uzi, authorities said.

Charles Vacca, 39, of Lake Havasu City, Arizona, died on Monday shortly after being airlifted to University Medical Center in Las Vegas, Mohave County sheriff’s officials said.

Vacca was standing next to the girl at the Last Stop outdoor shooting range in White Hills when she pulled the trigger and the recoil sent the gun over her head, investigators said.

WTF, a 9yr old girl being taught to use an Uzi?

Well the outcome had to be expected I suppose where idiots want their guns so badly.
ID: 1562753 · Report as offensive
Profile James Sotherden
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 10436
Credit: 110,373,059
RAC: 54
United States
Message 1562867 - Posted: 27 Aug 2014, 5:05:34 UTC - in response to Message 1562753.  

More stupidity from the great land of the gun. :-(

http://www.news.com.au/world/girl-nine-accidentally-kills-shooting-instructor-with-uzi-at-arizona-shooting-range/story-fndir2ev-1227038261240

AN Arizona shooting instructor was accidentally shot and killed while showing a nine-year-old girl how to use an automatic Uzi, authorities said.

Charles Vacca, 39, of Lake Havasu City, Arizona, died on Monday shortly after being airlifted to University Medical Center in Las Vegas, Mohave County sheriff’s officials said.

Vacca was standing next to the girl at the Last Stop outdoor shooting range in White Hills when she pulled the trigger and the recoil sent the gun over her head, investigators said.

WTF, a 9yr old girl being taught to use an Uzi?

Well the outcome had to be expected I suppose where idiots want their guns so badly.

The same thing happend a few years ago. Ony it was a 10 year old boy who shot himself using a uzi.
When I introduce a new shooter to a firearm of any age, they get one round. I want to see how they handel recoil. But then again I dont have any auto weapons. But still the same rule should apply. Take a gander at youtube for the idiots who think its fun to let someone shoot a .44 magnum or a .500 S&W with out telling them what to expect. Thats downright dangerous and stupid.
[/quote]

Old James
ID: 1562867 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24876
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1563021 - Posted: 27 Aug 2014, 12:10:55 UTC - in response to Message 1562867.  

Yep, recoil can be a bugger! The first weapon I ever fired was a Lee Enfield .303 rifle & did not have it securely braced against my shoulder. It hurt for weeks.

As for letting minors handle machine pistols/guns, just what are you Yanks thinking of?
ID: 1563021 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1563107 - Posted: 27 Aug 2014, 15:24:45 UTC - in response to Message 1563062.  

Why this obsession? I have never been able to understand it.

Their youth watches Hollycrap and it pollutes their "superior" culture. It is just another form of ....
ID: 1563107 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24876
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1563115 - Posted: 27 Aug 2014, 15:59:55 UTC - in response to Message 1563062.  

Of course Americans are 'idiots', or whatever else we are called with silly smug superiority. We have no need to comment upon whatever internal problems, or silly culture, you may have.

Why this obsession? I have never been able to understand it.


You have stated that you did a tour of Vietnam & also served as a police officer. If we are to believe this a true statement, then the above comment was uncalled for.

As for obsession? What obsession? I only stated what is America doing letting minors handle machine pistols/guns.
ID: 1563115 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1563205 - Posted: 27 Aug 2014, 18:33:28 UTC - in response to Message 1563115.  

I only stated what is America doing letting minors handle machine pistols/guns.

This is more deserving of a Darwin award than anything else.
ID: 1563205 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1563211 - Posted: 27 Aug 2014, 18:38:30 UTC - in response to Message 1563175.  

Almost nobody inside The USA, cares about all the internal problems of other Country's. That's your problem.

Clyde, maybe you don't, but we have something called "The State Department" that interferes in nearly every country's internal affairs. Does the phrase "ignore the government at your own peril" have any meaning to you?
ID: 1563211 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24876
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1563234 - Posted: 27 Aug 2014, 18:56:22 UTC - in response to Message 1563205.  

I only stated what is America doing letting minors handle machine pistols/guns.

This is more deserving of a Darwin award than anything else.


Carry on like that, & the USA will be holding onto the number one spot for many a year!
ID: 1563234 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1563302 - Posted: 27 Aug 2014, 20:22:00 UTC - in response to Message 1563175.  

Almost nobody inside The USA, cares about all the internal problems of other Country's. That's your problem.

We don't care to comment on other's internal problems.

Why do you take your valuable time, to comment upon us. I just don't understand it.

But you do. What were the reasons again for invading Iraq? WMD's? Yes, what else? Oh right, because there was a dictator brutally oppressing the people and America would come in and bring freedom and democracy. Thats commenting on the inner workings of another country in the extreme. Or in a less aggressive example, the fact that every time you guys have a meeting with the Chinese or some other country with a bad human rights record, human rights are things you talk about. And what happened with Uganda? First there were Americans that pushed the Ugandan government to adopt extreme anti LGBT measures and then the American government imposed sanctions because of those LGBT measures. Again, thats commenting on a countries internal affairs.

Look, everyone does it. And why do you care if other people use their freedom of speech to comment on the perceived flaws of another country? Why are you against other people criticizing you?
ID: 1563302 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1563392 - Posted: 27 Aug 2014, 22:05:38 UTC - in response to Message 1563225.  

When was the last time you commented, in these posts, regarding the Internal Culture's of France, Germany, UK, Australia, etc. Do you really care?

I know I was posting in the Crimea thread within the last week.
ID: 1563392 · Report as offensive
Profile Wiggo
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 34744
Credit: 261,360,520
RAC: 489
Australia
Message 1563418 - Posted: 27 Aug 2014, 22:56:36 UTC - in response to Message 1563225.  


Not speaking of Government Agency's.

Just individuals need to comment on Internal American Culture. When Americans do not appear to have that need.

Gary...

When was the last time you commented, in these posts, regarding the Internal Culture's of France, Germany, UK, Australia, etc. Do you really care?

Well Clyde, maybe you should finally do something about these things happening over there so that our news feeds over here arn't always full of all these stupidly idiotic and horrendous things that a lot of you people get up to over there. ;-)

But then again, that just maybe a mission impossible for your country to actually do with the "holier-than-thou" attitudes that a lot of you seem to have over there. :-(

Whether you like it or not Clyde, your country really needs to make some serious changes, otherwise how can the rest of us keep taking your country seriously?

Cheers.
ID: 1563418 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Double standard on violence


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.