Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In short, some illegals chased down a couple of Texas teenage girls, gang raped and murdered them. They were tried in Texas, found guilty and sentenced to death. They appealed their death sentences, partly on the grounds they were not allowed to take their case directly to the Mexican Consulate in accordance with a couple of international treaties. In their appeal, they argued they had taken their case to the World Court (since it was an international issue) and won. Since the area of these treaties come under the authority of the executive branch, Bush attempted to extend his authority and denied their claim citing the World Court has no binding authority in this country. The US Supreme court found against Bush 6-3. OK, that’s the right call in my opinion. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion and clearly stated Bush cannot “make the law”, only “follow the law”.
But here’s the curious part. The 3 liberal justices dissented. However, in their opinion, they stated that “any decision by the World Court should be construed as the binding law of the land in this country”. They intentionally did not try and qualify their remark to apply only to international treaty issues.
I know that Bill Clinton, when president, and with a lot of support by democrats promoted the idea of a “one world government” (an idea I reject) and it’s interesting to note 3 of our Supreme Court justices seem to follow that same political bent. It’s not so much a big concern than more of an interesting note.
Actually no president has said that he would ever let a world court put US soldiers on trial. All have rejected that.That also applies to most countries in the world. Why do you think the world court wasn't able to put saddam on trial;because most nations don't believe in it in reality.Of course then there is the fact that they have no enforcement powers at all.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,507,079 times
Reputation: 1721
Probably
Yeah we probably are heading toward the "New world order." (G.H. Bush) or the "One world Government" (W. Clinton.) or what ever the next name the next president decides to use. Whether it will be a good thing where people will still be free and be a "World Citizen" or a giant fascist power grab where individual will be controlled by the state (World Government) remains to be seen. My guess as to how the politicians will achieve this goal (at least for the united states) will be to first combine the economies of U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Then our/their government will start putting together law that can/will be able to be enforce across our boarders by other governments. Until the governments and economies are combine and integrated. Then they probably repeat this with the American continent. Then with the world government.
I can see how things could possible roll out where there is one central world government and then a bunch of territorial and local governments. Again I don't know if this will be a good or bad thing. Or if our leader will work toward make the world better with this type of power structure or will try to control all individuals living on earth. I hope the former is the path we take.
Eventually I think there will be one. A world wide supreme gov't ruling over the lesser country gov'ts. Eventually. Globalism is already very apparent and on the rise, and I think down the road this will be a logical step. Though, I hope I'm not around to see it tbh; I'm not fond of us giving up our sovereignty.
I think that is the protest against the world bank.many countries thank the west is running evrything.Who knows with all the conspiracy theories out there.
Actually no president has said that he would ever let a world court put US soldiers on trial. All have rejected that.That also applies to most countries in the world. Why do you think the world court wasn't able to put saddam on trial;because most nations don't believe in it in reality.Of course then there is the fact that they have no enforcement powers at all.
I'm not talking about military tribunals. Just that it's a common liberal view that moving toward a global government with a global monetary system... is desirable. There was a white paper floating around during the Clinton presidency about placing all the US armed forces under NATO command. Another idea towards a one world system.
Eventually I think there will be one. A world wide supreme gov't ruling over the lesser country gov'ts. Eventually. Globalism is already very apparent and on the rise, and I think down the road this will be a logical step. Though, I hope I'm not around to see it tbh; I'm not fond of us giving up our sovereignty.
I think you are probably right. Eventually, near the end of civilization (cause if we ever get to that stage, the world will be so sorrowful, who'd want to live in it) it will happen. And like you, I sure don't wanna be around for it.
But here’s the curious part. The 3 liberal justices dissented. However, in their opinion, they stated that “any decision by the World Court should be construed as the binding law of the land in this country”. They intentionally did not try and qualify their remark to apply only to international treaty issues.
What is even more curious is this quote isnt found anywhere in Medellin opinion.
O my god, does this mean the big black helicopters are coming soon?
It's those commie liberals undermining America again!
Black helicopters? Commies on the SC? I doubt it.
Your scorn of the OP'er aside, I'm curious though. What are your thoughts on the court's majoity opinion?
I support it myself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Probably
