4
4
0
Excellent legal discussion MAJ Montgomery Granger LTC (Join to see) Capt Gregory Prickett CPT Jack Durish PO1 William "Chip" Nagel MAJ James Woods LTC Eugene Chu Maj Robert Thornton 1stSgt Nelson Kerr SFC Shirley Whitfield SGT (Join to see) SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL COL Mikel J. Burroughs Col (Join to see)
America’s Courts Can’t Ignore the World
Posted from theatlantic.com
Supreme Court
Constitution
Law
World Affairs
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
2
2
0
1
1
0
Local problems require local solutions. Our legal system is based on the Constitution. No outside entity can claim that. We may enter into agreements, but we must never surrender our sovereignty. We comply with the Geneva Conventions, for example, but rely on American manuals and documents, most notably the Law of Land Warfare to tell American soldiers HOW we comply with the Conventions. There are also DA PAMs, regulations, SOP, etc., on the details of this observance. To allow an outside court to oversee our actions, abroad or at home, would be to surrender our sovereignty and our laws, which were written to establish and protect our rights and freedoms.
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
And here we go again, with a fundamental misunderstanding of both the law and regulatory guidance, and the requirements of the Constitution as to treaties. You've repeatedly pointed to Army Regulations, pamphlets, etc. as binding on all American service members, and they are simply not.
Second, we have a long tradition of going to international tribunals to settle questions of international law. While we are not a signatory to the International Criminal Court, we do participate in the International Court of Justice, and the World Trade Organization Dispute Resolution Panels. Both of the later are binding when decisions are made, and then enforceable under U.S. law in our courts. BTW, in the WTO panels, we win about 80% of the time.
We've done this for decades, in accordance with the treaties we've entered into, and in accordance with the Constitution. We've also called for international criminal trials, and participated in them in the past. The Nuremberg Trials and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East are two examples.
Do we have to participate? No, but once we agree to the treaty, under our Constitution, the treaty provisions become United States law, and we are bound by that law.
Second, we have a long tradition of going to international tribunals to settle questions of international law. While we are not a signatory to the International Criminal Court, we do participate in the International Court of Justice, and the World Trade Organization Dispute Resolution Panels. Both of the later are binding when decisions are made, and then enforceable under U.S. law in our courts. BTW, in the WTO panels, we win about 80% of the time.
We've done this for decades, in accordance with the treaties we've entered into, and in accordance with the Constitution. We've also called for international criminal trials, and participated in them in the past. The Nuremberg Trials and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East are two examples.
Do we have to participate? No, but once we agree to the treaty, under our Constitution, the treaty provisions become United States law, and we are bound by that law.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
Where have you been hiding? Thank you for your return. I appreciate your contribution.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Up to 20 percent of the cases may have transnational ties....dumb fisherman from Boston math: 80% do not. We can not yield our sovereignty wantonly. If you live here, you work here, or operate here, the US law is the law. Some would accuse me of being myopic, but there are a laundry list of unintended consequences that you don't know where it will end up, especially with US law's reliance of precedent to clarify gray areas of law.
The discussion of ISO, I see this aspect as very limited. International Building and Mechanical code have been the basis of US building code for years because it is very specific. ISO standards, if assimilated as a US standard under law or best practice is not the primrose path.
The Division of what is over reach and what is common sense can be murky at best.
EDIT: I find it odd that the nation whose law, civil order (read security), and justice system is the envy of the world is the one that needs to bend a knee....just a thought.
The discussion of ISO, I see this aspect as very limited. International Building and Mechanical code have been the basis of US building code for years because it is very specific. ISO standards, if assimilated as a US standard under law or best practice is not the primrose path.
The Division of what is over reach and what is common sense can be murky at best.
EDIT: I find it odd that the nation whose law, civil order (read security), and justice system is the envy of the world is the one that needs to bend a knee....just a thought.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google