Which Do You Hate More,

[wkmac]

Marijuana or the UN overstepping local community decisions not to mention national sovernity?

Granted, our membership in the UN and treaties passed and signed by our Senate which overrides our Constitution and local and State laws may have the upperhand but is this right? Remember, the precedence you set could also effect those precious gun rights you value for example not to mention global warming laws and even a potential global income tax (yes, it has been talked about) so what do you fear more? A few folks token some weed or the UN and other international interest overstepping into American culture?

I can just imagine for some of you this one is gonna be tough!

 

[diesel96]

Since when has the US stood by and adhered to every treaty and agreements passed thru the UN."cough" "cough"

From Law and Technology resource for legal professionals;

“Domestically, treaties to which the United States is a party are equivalent in status to Federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ‘the supreme Law of the Land.’ Yet, the word treaty does not have the same meaning in the United States and in international law.”1 The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines a treaty “as an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation.”2 Under United States law, however, there is a distinction made between the terms treaty and executive agreement. “In the United States, the word treaty is reserved for an agreement that is made ‘by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate’ (Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution). International agreements not submitted to the Senate are known as ‘executive agreements’ in the United States.”3 Generally, a treaty is a binding international agreement and an executive agreement applies in domestic law only. Under international law, however, both types of agreements are considered binding. Regardless of whether an international agreement is called a convention, agreement, protocol, accord, etc.; if it is submitted to the Senate for advice and consent, it is considered a treaty under United States law.
Is this another example of gov't and the so called "moral majority" interfering with our lives when it comes to issues they despise ?