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 the case of the Kyoto Treaty and the UN Rights of the Child, and the UN Human Rights Declaration, the president can sign any treaty he wants, but it does not have legal force in the borders of the U.S. unless it is ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. So, Clinton and Obama might like an international treaty, like climate change ones, but the Senate does not. Too bad. This has nothing to do with the USA "sticking their nose in other people's business". Please learn how our political process works, Turboblocke, as it seems you have no idea how it works
In a couple of threads recently, I've noticed that there have been International Treaties that the USA has been involved drafting which it then has not ratified and implemented e.g. the Kyoto Protocol and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Why? If you weren't planning on accepting them, why stick your nose into other peoples' business?
Because they are often growth limiting proposals for the US. (Kyoto)
1) Indeed that was my question.
2 That was a UN operation. Nearly 40 countries participated in the actions: only one was the USA.
3) So why are you sticking your noses in then?
But you're getting away from my point about the international conventions.
Your point fails to understand the American political system. In the American system, Congress, and only Congress, can ratify treaties. However, our diplomats and representatives can and do negotiate treaties with the hope that such international agreements will be ratified.
And the United States is not sticking its nose in. The United Nations is sticking its nose in. Since the United States is a prominent member of that international organization, it's both practical and logical that the United States would be involved in its efforts to forge international agreements and cooperation. When the United States ratifies such agreements, as it has repeatedly, it lends even greater weight to such agreements. When the United States does not ratify such agreements, it does not nullify those agreements, nor take away anything from the UN members who do choose to cooperate on various resolutions and projects.
In a couple of threads recently, I've noticed that there have been International Treaties that the USA has been involved drafting which it then has not ratified and implemented e.g. the Kyoto Protocol and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Why? If you weren't planning on accepting them, why stick your nose into other peoples' business?
Why should the US ratify and implement those treaties? Currently the USA's EPA regulations are much more stringent than the Kyoto Protocol. The UN Convention of Rights of the Child removes the rights of parents and makes the child property of the state. Perhaps that is good for feudal servants in Marxist regimes where statism is King; but, here in the USA where our rights are granted by our Creator and not our government, that garbage is unConstiutional.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness as unalienable rights endowed by our Creator makes us rogue? Really? Then by all means may rogue be the new vogue!
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness as unalienable rights endowed by our Creator makes us rogue? Really? Then by all means may rogue be the new vogue!
Like it or leave it!
I'm an atheist! You can believe in your creator, but you don't the right to force your creator upon everyone else. Too bad for you, huh?
The love it it leave it response is about as intolerant as one can get. You reveal yourself.
I'm an atheist! You can believe in your creator, but you don't the right to force your creator upon everyone else. Too bad for you, huh?
The love it it leave it response is about as intolerant as one can get. You reveal yourself.
Your opinion. Even aethists have a Creator whether they choose to acknolwedge one or not.
And yes, I would rather those people who do not appreciate the unique liberty our country offers compared to European Socialist Democracies leave rather than change us into the same. Intolerant of tyranny and opression in favor of liberty and the rights of the individual, you bet I am and proud of it!
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.
