I find it humorous that at the very time the home page of this wikia is promoting the socialist agenda of the UN, Julian Fellowes delivers an episode that could be right out of Atlas Shrugged. First Molesley paraphrases noted classical liberal, Edmund Burke. Then it seems, all it took was a few months in America to convert Tom Branson from Socialist to American style capitalist. Followed by Gwen showing that success can come from any social or economic origin. And the icing on the cake was Violet channeling her best John Galt (before John Galt I might add) in a lecture on the evils of government.
Way to go Julian. :)
There are many bad solutions to many non-problems. Anyone can cherry-pick one of the many proposed laws, but that doesn't make them valid or viable.
I do not follow. What laws are you referring to? Ones made by the UN? Any law allowed to be made by the UN is inherently a bad law, because it violates national sovereignty. The US Constitution, for example, explicitly protects against this under Article VI, paragraph 2, otherwise known as the supremacy clause.
You're right you don't follow. You link a US law and then start talking about UN laws. The UN doesn't have any laws, but they are involved in so-called "international law" (which is largely unenforceable and ignored at national convenience frequently), much of which has nothing to do with the UN.
Also the supremacy clause applies to states vs. federal. UN relations fall under foreign policy and the State department.
You brought up "bad laws". If you check my prior posts I never used the word "law" even once, so it is no surprise that I guess wrong when trying to figure out the laws to which you refer. You explained what laws you are not referring to, but have yet to explain which ones you are.
As to the supremacy clause, all treaties are subserviant to the Constitution, Article II section 2 for enactment, Article III section 2 for judicial authority. It would be an absurd interpretation to think that the Constitution could be completely circumvented just by writing a treaty.
Ehj666 wrote: I do not follow. What laws are you referring to? Ones made by the UN? Any law allowed to be made by the UN is inherently a bad law, because it violates national sovereignty. The US Constitution, for example, explicitly protects against this under Article VI, paragraph 2, otherwise known as the supremacy clause.
You mean these non-mentions of the word "law"?
Almost all trade agreements, especially ones like NAFTA and the probable upcoming TPP essentially sidestep the supremacy clause. Also any treaty agreement can easily sidestep the supremacy clause with fastrack status which prevents Congress from rejecting specific parts of treaties that might otherwise be considered violations of existing US law. This is similar to when companies get people to sign agreements to binding arbitration, so they essentially waive their rights to use the regular legal system (of course this doesn't always work out for companies.
I can talk politics all day an night if you want, but is this really the place for it? I will remind you, you started this thread. So you can end it.
Also, if you disagree with the UN Global Goals banner, lobby Amateur Obsessive. If they want it down, I can take it down no problem, but not just on your wandering political whims.
I am quite happy to drop it, Only on a technical point, where are you pulling the non-mentions of law? It never directly came up in our coversation, and if it is burried in a link someplace, that is pretty weak to assume that it is part of the conversation.
And not to make too fine a point of it, but my original post directly related to the content of a DA episode and its timing, you turned it political.
Um, minor correction. Surely you started the political discussion, using the latest episode in order to bring up the global goals thing again.
"I find it humorous that at the very time the home page of this wikia is promoting the socialist agenda of the UN . . ."
Actually you started it by posting that banner in the first place. If it were not there, then there would have been no reason to point out the ironic timing. Everything in that post relates directly to DA and this wikia, so you cannot say I was the one that went off on an unrelated political tangent.
Everything in that post relates directly to DA and this wikia, so you cannot say I was the one that went off on an unrelated political tangent.
Seen through your lens, I suppose.
If my initial post is responsible for what came afterwards, then posting the global goals banner is also responsible for anything that came later. I wasn't the only one saying it did not belong here. Believing otherwise is the hypocritial belief known as "My sh*t don't stink".
What do you think?