Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Huge disapproval from liberals
After weeks of telling us that the treaty imposes no requirements not already in force in the US by law or regulation, the major liberal sites are unanimous that senate rejection of this treaty was “shameful.”
Why?
Could it have something to do with intentionally transferring sovereignty to supra-national, global institutions, as the wary right believe?
The idea is afoot that if these requirements are enshrined in a treaty they cannot be changed, ignored, or overriden either by the relevant federal regulatory agencies or by the US legislature.
Which makes you wonder what exactly is supposed to be the constitutionally prescribed method of getting out of a treaty, once in.
Apart from just paying it no mind, I mean.
That being the historically routine way in which nations decide to opt out of treaties they have come to regret.
They just blow them off.
If that’s supposedly not allowed (and what horseshit it would be to say so, really), then what is?
Why would you intentionally tie yourself in knots that cannot be untied?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment