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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (211908)	7/13/2007 1:30:17 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793964

Yes, I think so. I can't find that he supports any international treaties or agreements. So I feel justified in saying he opposes them all. Re all international treaties, my impression is that he just opposes the ones that obviate US sovereignty, but I haven't studied it closely and could be mistaken. What makes you think he opposes ALL treaties? As for couching his opposition in terms of sovereignity, one can say that any treaty theoretically "obviates US sovereignity". After all, all treaties involve the promise to do or not do something which otherwise the government wouldn't be required to do. And the treaty becomes the law of the land for the length of time it is in force. But as long as the government has the freedom to accept or reject treaties and retains the right to abrogate treaties, any "sovereignity violation" is imaginary. And I think the US certainly does retain the sovereign right to withdraw any treaty we choose. Accordingly, I see the sovereignity issue as bogus. Sure all treaties "violate" or limit sovereignity but as long as they are 1) entered into voluntarily and 2) the right to abrogate is maintained, there is no real sovereignity issue.