Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

I imagine the premise would be that a lot of those treaties and conventions and whatnot would've nullified US sovereignty over our own affairs. And you kno how we here in the US hate to surrender sovereignty to foreign powers.

I believe it is in the Constitution that we cannot legally do so, which was one of the sticking points of both the TPP and the climate accords; Both required US companies to submit to external authorities.

[mad_gater]

I believe it is in the Constitution that we cannot legally do so, which was one of the sticking points of both the TPP and the climate accords; Both required US companies to submit to external authorities.

I didn't really read much about those other Treaties but I know the one regarding the ICC was a big US sovereignty issue

[Falcon Horus]

I imagine the premise would be that a lot of those treaties and conventions and whatnot would've nullified US sovereignty over our own affairs. And you kno how we here in the US hate to surrender sovereignty to foreign powers.

Indeed, the folks writing your constitution didn't think that far ahead.

***

The US Constitution, has this to say on the subject of treaties:

Article II: [The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

Article VI: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

There are therefore two main differences between the American system and the more usual Parliamentary system of dealing with treaties. First, the President can only make Treaties with the consent of two-thirds of the Senate.

Secondly, and more importantly, treaties trump national law, having the same status as the Constitution. This means that activists can take the US Government to court and have national law quashed on the basis of a treaty commitment. Judges can also instruct the Federal Government to take steps to meet treaty commitments.

[Annoyed]

But I'm pretty sure there are protections in place to prevent any treaty from ceding federal or state laws to a foreign authority; no treaty can grant that power. I don't have time to look into it, but I'm sure I remember that from something a while back.

[garhkal]

I imagine the premise would be that a lot of those treaties and conventions and whatnot would've nullified US sovereignty over our own affairs. And you kno how we here in the US hate to surrender sovereignty to foreign powers.

I agree. Many of those didn't get rattified cause we don't want to hand our soverignity over to them. Look at it, this way.
We fought for our freedom from the British cause we were sick and tired of NO Representation over ourselves, and no say in how those people came to power.
SO since the UN peeps are in power without any vote from the PEOPLE they supposedly represent, why then would we willingly submit OUR laws to them, when we have no representation??

[jelgate]

Garhlkal needs to read a little about colonial America

[Annoyed]

He's not that far off. There is no way on earth I would support UN jurisdiction over any aspect of our government, state or federal, and I don't think it's legal for any treaty or politician to do so.
Particularly the way the UN has been over the past several decades. basically anti-US club, unless of course they want us to pay for something or engage in a war.

In fact, it wouldn't bother me if we told the entire organization to take a flying leap, 12.1 miles due east, and take their building with them.

[SoulReaver]

Yeah, that is true.

I'm not kidding here. They have no right to the economic, social, and cultural rights guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

They have no right to education, an adequate standard of living including food, shelter, and medical care.

The US is even more backward than I thought.

I give you the Major International Treaties the U.S. Has NOT Ratified

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights • (1966) Part of the International Bill of Human Rights, this is the only covenant that requires governments to promote and protect such rights as health, education, social protection, and an adequate standard of living for all people. The ICESCR has been ratified by more than 150 countries. President Carter signed the Covenant in 1977, but the United States has yet to ratify it.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women • (1979) The most comprehensive and detailed international agreement that seeks the advancement of women, CEDAW has been ratified by 185 countries. Although President Carter signed CEDAW in 1980, today the United States is the only industrialized country that has not ratified the treaty.

Convention on the Rights of the Child • (1989) Protecting children from physical and mental abuse and hazardous work, and giving children the right to free primary education, the CRC has been ratified by 193 countries, making it one of the most widely adopted conventions. President Clinton signed the CRC in 1995 but the United States has yet to ratify it, one of only two countries in the world not to do so.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court • (1998) The ICC conducts trials of individuals accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity when there is no other recourse for justice. 146 countries have signed the ICC, including the United States. In 2002, President Bush stated that the United States did not intend to be bound by its signature to the Rome Statute and that it had no intention of ratifying it.

International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families • (1990) The Migrant Workers Convention protects migrant workers and their families from abuse and inhumane treatment in the countries where they work. No industrialized, migrant-receiving country, including the United States, has signed this treaty.

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities • (2006) The CRPD is the first global convention that specifically addresses the human rights of persons with disabilities. President Obama signed the treaty in 2009, but the United States has yet to ratify it.

International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance • (2006) This Convention affirms that enforced disappearances constitute a crime against humanity when practiced in a widespread or systematic manner. The United States has not yet signed this treaty.



The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the US signed but never ratified so you can consider yourself a privileged white boy who got an education he has no right to, healthcare he has no right to, adequate living standard he has no right to.



Well, you only read what you already agree with so I guess that's no surprise.

Here go, read something that might up that knowledge a little:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA): what it is and what it means for physicians

"[...]

In 1986 and 1987, 2 articles appeared in the literature by physicians from Cook County Hospital in Chicago detailing the extent of patient dumping to that facility. The authors defined dumping as “the denial of or limitation in the provision of medical services to a patient for economic reasons and the referral of that patient elsewhere”. The majority of such transfers to Cook County Hospital involved patients who were minorities and unemployed. The reason given for the transfer by the sending institution was lack of insurance in 87% of the cases. Only 6% of the patients had given written informed consent for their transfer. Medical service patients who were transferred were twice as likely to die as those treated at the transferring hospital, and 24% of the patients were considered to have been transferred in an unstable condition. It was concluded that this practice was done primarily for financial reasons and that it delayed care and jeopardized the patient's health. This practice was not limited to Chicago but occurred in most large cities with public hospitals. In Dallas, such transfers increased from 70 per month in 1982 to more than 200 per month in 1983."

Here's what the law does:

EMTALA imposes 3 distinct legal duties on hospitals. According to the statute, only facilities that participate in Medicare are included, but this encompasses almost 98% of all US hospitals. First, hospitals must perform a medical screening examination (MSE) on any person who comes to the hospital and requests care to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists. Second, if an EMC exists, hospital staff must either stabilize that condition to the extent of their ability or transfer the patient to another hospital with the appropriate capabilities. Finally, hospitals with specialized capabilities or facilities (e.g., burn units) are required to accept transfers of patients in need of such specialized services if they have the capacity to treat them.

[...]

Furthermore, the law prohibits any participating hospital from delaying such screening examination or further care “in order to inquire about the individual's method of payment or insurance status”.

Let's have a few fun facts about the USA:

* Compared to the 34 nations of the OECD, the United States had the third highest rate of infant mortality (behind Turkey and Mexico), 2.4 practicing physicians per 1,000 people (lower than the OECD average of 3.1), and an average life expectancy of 78.7 (lower than the OECD average of 80.1 years).

* In 2012 US health care spending totaled $2.8 trillion dollars and accounted for 17.2% of the US Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The average annual cost of health care for the typical US family of four was over $20,000, and health care costs that year rose at double the rate of inflation.

* In 1938, health care reform to provide universal coverage was proposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt as an extension of social security, and US Surgeon General Thomas Parran argued that "equal opportunity for health is a basic American right." In Feb. 1939, Senator Robert Wagner (D-NY) introduced the National Health Care Act of 1939 which would have implemented a national health care system, however, the bill did not gain the necessary support in Congress and died in committee.

Here's another great article which appeared in the American Journal of Public Health:
New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

"“The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors, and baseline health,” said lead author Andrew Wilper, M.D., who currently teaches at the University of Washington School of Medicine. “We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease — but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications.”"

bah so what soon they'll have a right to Life™ & that's the only right that matters...right?

[Gatefan1976]

probably also partof the reason I got fired from subway....was sick of them leaving us by ourselves, sometimes even during lunch rush and wasn't shy about telling people all and sundry about their inability to properly staff the place

Well, I didn't do that, and I held a position of authority myself (it was my team that was on the verge of rebellion).
You have to be careful about where and how you do it.

[Falcon Horus]

He's not that far off. There is no way on earth I would support UN jurisdiction over any aspect of our government, state or federal, and I don't think it's legal for any treaty or politician to do so.
Particularly the way the UN has been over the past several decades. basically anti-US club, unless of course they want us to pay for something or engage in a war.

In fact, it wouldn't bother me if we told the entire organization to take a flying leap, 12.1 miles due east, and take their building with them.

It seems you are mixing the United Nations and NATO up.

Key difference: The UN is an international organization which was created to keep the peace between nations and help create international law and cooperation. NATO is a military and political alliance of different countries which was created to counter Soviet and Communist power.

The United Nations' primary mandate is peacekeeping (established in October 1945). Its system is based on five principal parts:
1) The General Assembly - the main deliberative assembly
2) The Security Council - for deciding certain resolutions for peace and security
3) The Economic and Social Council - for promoting international economic and social co-operation and development
4) The Secretariat - for providing studies, information, and facilities needed by the UN
5) The International Court of Justice - the primary judicial organ

It has currently 198 member states.
Headquarters are located in New York City (USA).

It is financed by assessed and voluntary contribution from its member states. Its objectives include maintaining international peace and security, promoting human rights, fostering social and economic development, protecting the environment, and providing humanitarian aid in cases of famine, natural disaster, and armed conflict.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is an international government military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty (signed on 4th April 1949 --also known as the Atlantic Alliance).

It has currently 28 member states.
Headquarters are located in Brussels (Belgium)

This organization constitutes a system of collective defense, and its member states agree to a mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.

It is an integrated military structure built under the direction of two U.S. supreme commanders. The staff at the Headquarters is composed of national delegations of member countries, military liaison offices and civilian officers and diplomats of partner countries, as well as the International Staff and International Military Staff filled from serving members of the armed forces of the member states.

Its primary committees are:
1) Committee on the Civil Dimension of Security
2) Defense and Security Committee
3) Economics and Security Committee
4) Political Committee
5) Science and Technology Committee

NATO is a war defensive organization. It is committed to the principle of collective defense. It believes that an attack against one or several members is an attack against all. The countries in the NATO are in a political and military alliance towards self defense and maintaining peace so to build trust and prevent conflict, and keep the safety of the countries. It protects the security of its members. In this age of globalization, transatlantic peace is a viable and a worldwide effort that extends beyond the might of military.

***

And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is part of the United Nations organization.

[pookey]

And who was responsible for breaking GW Or,shall we just blame Trump?

[Gatefan1976]

And who was responsible for breaking GW Or,shall we just blame Trump?

More updates, so blame the mods, we all know they are evil subversives working for the computer.

[jelgate]

More updates, so blame the mods, we all know they are evil subversives working for the computer. Cantina

Fixed

[garhkal]

He's not that far off. There is no way on earth I would support UN jurisdiction over any aspect of our government, state or federal, and I don't think it's legal for any treaty or politician to do so.
Particularly the way the UN has been over the past several decades. basically anti-US club, unless of course they want us to pay for something or engage in a war.

In fact, it wouldn't bother me if we told the entire organization to take a flying leap, 12.1 miles due east, and take their building with them.

OR how they seem to always stupidly put countries with the WORST human rights records around, ON THE Human rights councils, and other such idiocy..

[SGalisa]

He's not that far off. There is no way on earth I would support UN jurisdiction over any aspect of our government, state or federal, and I don't think it's legal for any treaty or politician to do so.
Particularly the way the UN has been over the past several decades. basically anti-US club, unless of course they want us to pay for something or engage in a war.

In fact, it wouldn't bother me if we told the entire organization to take a flying leap, 12.1 miles due east, and take their building with them.

It seems you are mixing the United Nations and NATO up.

Key difference: The UN is an international organization which was created to keep the peace between nations and help create international law and cooperation. NATO is a military and political alliance of different countries which was created to counter Soviet and Communist power.

The United Nations' primary mandate is peacekeeping (established in October 1945). Its system is based on five principal parts:
1) The General Assembly - the main deliberative assembly
2) The Security Council - for deciding certain resolutions for peace and security
3) The Economic and Social Council - for promoting international economic and social co-operation and development
4) The Secretariat - for providing studies, information, and facilities needed by the UN
5) The International Court of Justice - the primary judicial organ

It has currently 198 member states.
Headquarters are located in New York City (USA).

It is financed by assessed and voluntary contribution from its member states. Its objectives include maintaining international peace and security, promoting human rights, fostering social and economic development, protecting the environment, and providing humanitarian aid in cases of famine, natural disaster, and armed conflict.

Sorry.. couldn't resist on highlighting that environmental bit.. ..

Addendum to FH's notes...
The UN already acts as an international guidance for all countries to follow regulatory rules, which our USA gov't agencies update(s) certain regulations annually for the DOT (ground vehicles/choo-choo train) to be in sync with the harmonization of (international) IATA (air) and IMDG (shipping vessel) rules. When the compliance experts are in doubt with USA regs, they sometimes consult the UN guidebook if something is in question. IATA (air) and IMDG (vessel) also consult with the international rules from the UN's guidebook. So, the UN's paws are already involved, whether people realize it or not or *want* it or not.

And who was responsible for breaking GW Or,shall we just blame Trump?

More updates, so blame the mods, we all know they are evil subversives working for the computer.

When did that happen? I guess I missed it this time around..been too busy looking at cat/kitty videos, lately, among other home things/chores.