The Glade 4.0

Remember!
When you don't want to answer a question about a theoretical scenario, move the goalposts of the discussion to only discuss practical or historical scenarios.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Don't move the goalposts. Obviously it is at a "very high level". That level, however, is not as high as the Constitution itself.

Ammendments are something that the Senate (the House does not vote on treaties, so it really is not "Congressional" approval, but I know what you meant) cannot approve. The House of Representatives can propose ammendments, but only the states, the ratifying authorities of the Constitution itself, can ammend it.

In fact, one would think you would be against the idea tht treaties are even as high as Federal law given that they only require one House to approve but other laws require both of them.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This one:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Except that it says exactly that in the constitution. It's the supreme law of the land.

DFK - There are a lot of people who believe a lot of wacky **** about the United Nations. There are people, theoretically serious conservative thinkers, who believe that Obama is engaged in a conspiracy to elminate our borders and come into some sort of single-economy deal with Canada and Mexico. There's a lot of nut job crap out there that leads people to believe there's some big conspiracy to let the UN tax our citizens. This sounds like that sort of clap trap.

If it's come up for a vote, then I think we can safely say it's on the table. However, I don't think anyone would believe that we would vote in favor of such an action in the UN. Maybe folks would, but then again, a lot of folks think we don't have anything to do with global warming, and that the President isn't a citizen.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Your question was if the topic was on the table, and it certainly is as far as the UN, the various agencies and some country governments are concerned. As far as I know, none of various proposals or concepts have made it to paper yet for there to be a vote... well, there was the Global Poverty Act that didn't make it to the Senate and died. This was part of the UN's Milliennium Development Plan.

of course, if you were interested, there are other topics/agencies you could research on your own, such as the world bank's plan to impose a global tax on banking systems, etc.

Did You Know?
By changing the goalposts, and then discussing my pointing out that you've changed the goalposts, you've still manage to wholly evade Rynar's original question.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Yes. It says that three things are the Supreme Law of the Land - the Constitution, Treaties, and Federal laws passed by Congress. In other words, they are supreme above all other laws - State law, common law history, and any other sort of law

However, it also indicates that the Constitution itself must be supreme among those three. It has to be, otherwise how could it establish those three as Supreme?

If it were not, the PResident could sign a treaty by which we would agree to be no longer governed by the Constitution, but then, how would that treaty have any force as law, since it is the Constitution that makes it law?

Similarly, Congress could pass a law abrogating the entire Constitution, and there would be no way to find it unConstitutional.. except that how would that law have any force, since it is the Constitution that grants it power as the supreme law of the land.

Treaties are subordinate to the Constitution, period, or they are not treaties, since the President that signed them and the Senate that ratified them get the power to do so from the Constitution.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Unfortunately, a lot. War has solved a great many disputes.

Wars not make one great.

-Yoda

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Yoda was a hypocrite. Also, fiction.

Hypothetical for you -

Lets say aliens came down from the sky and proved to you beyond all doubt that they were from the future. And in that future, they showed you that not only did Libertarianism lead to the downfall of mankind and brutal fascism, but also the eventual devastation of the environment and the destruction of the human race.

Would you still support libertarianism?

Some hypotheticals are just stupid. Like this one. The checks and balances in place to this sort of treaty ensure that something along those lines would require massive public and international support to see the light of day. How would I feel about it? I don't honestly know.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Time-travelling aliens? Couldn't they just be time-travellers? You're stretching here.

_________________

How would human time travelers be able to warn you of the destruction of the human race?

Obviously they were cryogenically frozen through the incident. Come on, try to keep up, here.

_________________

That's proposterous. There's no way you could cryogenically freeze people. Now your just talking nonsense.

It is only logical that they must have time traveled from the past to a future where there is no human race, saw the obvious signs of a Libertarian-led mass extinction, and then came back to our time to save us from our ill-advised resistance to the collective.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I should have just said "Canadians"

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Then we must invade Canada to get their time-travel device. For the children!

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

If we have to invade Canada, probably a good thing we spent all that money on the military instead of education.

The only problem is you can't go from the past to the future. The waveforms haven't collapsed to allow there to be "a future", and a time travel device would require a time analysis device merely to choose among the various potentials. The time analysis device would have to be so sophisticated that it would be far beyond even the most wild theoreticizing about AIs, and would thus, as a first step, annihilate humans to make its own job easier.

_________________

Alternatively you could simply step into a bubble universe that has already aged sufficiently.

_________________

"How do you guys like your fancy-pants public education program and small military now? If you guys were so smart, you should have seen this coming."

That still puts you in a separate eigenstate and doesn't solve anything.

_________________

Monte:

I'll play. Yes, I would, if it could be proven by the time-traveling aliens that I had been wrong.

Now, answer the hypothetical.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Then please provide more context. What is going on in the world that has caused the UN to try and pass a tax on it's member nations? Does the UN have the power to do so in it's charter? What are the conditions in the United States, and what are the various pros and cons for the tax in question?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show