Introducing the US Constitution (was Re: [POLITICS] Thank God for the death of the UN (Article)

From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sat Mar 22 2003 - 17:31:02 MST

  • Next message: Lee Corbin: "RE: [POLITICS] Thank God for the death of the UN (Article)"

    John clarke writes:

    > If the most powerful military force in the world is benevolent
    > and wise then we will live in a happy world, if it's brutal and
    > stupid then we won't; this stuff that some call "international
    > law" just doesn't enter into it.

    The "most powerful military force in the world" is not sentient in
    itself and is not in itself either benevolent or malevolent, wise or
    foolish rather it is an instrument of the judgement of its
    commander in chief - President Bush.

    > "International Law" is a silly term anyway, a "law" means
    > things must happen this was as in the laws of motion or it
    > means punishment will result from law enforcers.

    Well I guess "international law" *would* be a stretch if one did
    not know of a meaning of the word "law" that related in some
    way to "courts" and "legislatures".

    The dictionary I just happen to have nearby (The Collins
    Concise) has this to say about "law":

    "Law n. 1. a rule or set of rules, enforceable by the courts (sic)
    regulationg the relationship between the state and its subjects,
    and the conduct of subjects towards one another. 2. a. a rule
    or body of rules made by the legislature (sic)." (It goes on, quite
    a long way after that especially for a "concise" dictionary).

    Courts! Legislature!

    Here's a link to a document called The Constitution of the United
    States which seems to relate to "law" more as it might be
    understood in this usage.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

    Might be good to check it out sometime and read about such
    esoterics as The Legislative Branch, The Presidency, The
    Judiciary and the Legal Status of the Constitution.

    Personally, I reckon, that some interest in the US constitution,
    the UN Charter, and perhaps even the Extropian Principles
    might not be unhealthy at present (even for those of us who are
    not American). The future must be reached from the present and
    it seems that many bright capable folk don't really understand the
    basics of the current society in which we live. How can we
    change something for the better if we don't understand it?

    If knowledge is power then I would suggest to whoever finds
    some resonance, as I do, in the extropian principles to recognize
    that some knowledge is a whole lot more powerful and worth
    acquiring quickly than others types of knowledge. It is actually
    possible for civilization to slip backwards. The "dark ages" is
    not a historical reference to a solar eclispe.

    International law is not that esoteric. It arises simply because
    the heads of countries ratified (signed) treaties and agreed to
    honor the mutual obligations contained therein.

    If, instead of revoking them, heads of nation states like the
    USA, the UK and Australia choose to selectively break
    international treaties when and as they see fit, on what basis can
    their citizens have confidence that those same heads of state will
    not use their power to selectively interpret their obligations to
    their individual citizens?

    Brett Paatsch



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 22 2003 - 17:13:39 MST