Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (148464)	7/17/2002 4:22:33 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578704

In spite of the fact, that we have signed some of these laws, we now are above them and not subject to them? What a bunch of elistist crap! The author doesn't think England or France or Germany have documents comparable to the Bill of Rts.? Well, he needs to think again? This American chauvinism is absurd.......and you wonder why other countries are critical! England doesn't have something equivilent to the bill of rights. They have traditions, and ordinary laws protecting people's rights but probably not quite to the extent that our constitution does. Also the ordinary laws can be thrown out by another odinary law. I know some people in England are upset about how the EC has thrown out some English law, so America is not unique in being concerned about international bodies potentially having too much control. I don't know if Germany has a written constitution and bill of rights. We might have pushed one on them after WWII. In any case I'm not sure I understand your point. The fact that England or Germany could potentially have their rights eroded by treaties doesn't mean that the US has less to worry about, in fact if it happens to other countries it shows that the worry is not unfounded. As for signing agreements thats is not enough unless they are ratified. A lot of the agreements that we get bashed for not following have not been ratified and thus are not binding on the US. The other problem is that the treaties could weaken our constitutional protections. Sure we would have to sign and ratify them if they are to become law in the US, but it is a lot simplier and easier to sign and ratify a treaty then it is to pass a constitutional ammendment. All you have to do is get the president and a two-thirds majority of the senate, not two thirds of both houses of congress, plus the president, and three fourths of the state legislatures. Is this a threat? How is acknowledging the military superiority of the US a threat? ? What specifically do you not understand? Tim