Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It is all a step towards lettting the U.N. come in and take our guns!

 Easy E wrote:
It is all a step towards lettting the U.N. come in and take our guns!

Dey tuk ur gunz!

 Easy E wrote:
It is all a step towards lettting the U.N. come in and take our guns!

Bah, they 'taint got enough bullets!

whether the Constitution’s structural limits on federal authority impose any constraints on the scope of Congress’ authority to enact legislation to implement a valid treaty, at least in circumstances where the federal statute, as applied, goes far beyond the scope of the treaty, intrudes on traditional state prerogatives, and is concededly unnecessary to satisfy the government’s treaty obligations; and (2) whether the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, 18 U.S.C. § 229, can be interpreted not to reach ordinary poisoning cases, which have been adequately handled by state and local authorities since the Framing, in order to avoid the difficult constitutional questions involving the scope of and continuing vitality of this Court’s decision in Missouri v. Holland.

THAT is what's in front of the Supreme Court.

Yes thats not a jurisdictional dispute. Thats a federalism/separation of powers dispute. While both are important, the federalism issue is typicaly much larger.

And agreed, although i no longer like Cruz, I'll take his argument over random internetz guy. Its not like he was an AG or anything and argued such cases in the past...

Medallin v. Texas is different from this issue.

In that case, the question was whether a state had to comply with and submit to the ICJ, except that the US had withdrawn from the optional part of the treaty that stated that, and therefore the treaty didn't apply to the states.

In this specific case, the treaty isn't even really applying to the states, the treaty is providing another avenue through which prosecutors may prosecute someone. If the prosecutors decided to move forward charging them at the state level, there would be no action the treaty would require of the states, at least on this specific prosecution.

 whembly wrote:

The issue is really more complicated than just who has jurisdiction.

The question is:

whether the Constitution’s structural limits on federal authority impose any constraints on the scope of Congress’ authority to enact legislation to implement a valid treaty, at least in circumstances where the federal statute, as applied, goes far beyond the scope of the treaty, intrudes on traditional state prerogatives, and is concededly unnecessary to satisfy the government’s treaty obligations; and (2) whether the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, 18 U.S.C. § 229, can be interpreted not to reach ordinary poisoning cases, which have been adequately handled by state and local authorities since the Framing, in order to avoid the difficult constitutional questions involving the scope of and continuing vitality of this Court’s decision in Missouri v. Holland.

THAT is what's in front of the Supreme Court.

And if you can now go through that for me and explain to me how the application of a constitutional federal law that ratified a constitutional treaty in a case where a state law could have covered the offense (something that is worth questioning and deciding, and something that is already happening on a regular basis with drug laws) will lead to the authorization of enforcing unconstitutional treaties be my guest.

Because that is the argument Cruz is making in that article. He argues that allowing the federal government to prosecute a ratified treaty that has zero conflict with the constitution instead of using a state law to prosecute would lead to the government then prosecuting people under unconstitutional treaties.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: In some of the briefs itself it is quite clear that nobody argues that the treaty is not constitutional and that even the government agrees that if a treaty would violate the constitution they could not enforce it at all:

In support of its broad reading of Holland, the
government contends that treaty-implementing
legislation need only “comply with the Constitution’s
express limitations on government power, such as
those found in the Bill of Rights.”

Which goes against the argument Cruz is making in the article. That if this treaty, which everybody involved agrees is constitutional, can be enforced by the federal government in this particular case then it will lead to unconstitutional treaties that take away our guns and the government will then be allowed to enforce such unconstitutional treaties behind the backs of the states. The government contends already that treaty-implementing legislation needs to comply with Constitutional limits.

The case is not about a treaty being or not being constitutional, which is the essence on which Cruz's argument relies on.
The case is focused on whether this particular application of the treaty is constitutional or if it violates the tenth.

Again, it is a valid case and a very valid argument that is made by the actual parties involved. This case should be where it is right now and it can most certainly use a ruling by SCOTUS.

But a ruling against Bond will not enable the federal government to enforce treaties that are unconstitutional to begin with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

And agreed, although i no longer like Cruz, I'll take his argument over random internetz guy. Its not like he was an AG or anything and argued such cases in the past...

Does that mean we can lock the Benghazi thread, and the ObamaCare thread, and any other thread that is already being argued by people who are experts in those cases?

Apparently we don't need to waste bandwidth for us to theory-hammer stuff like that on a wargaming forum.

 d-usa wrote:

The case is not about a treaty being or not being constitutional, which is the essence on which Cruz's argument relies on.
The case is focused on whether this particular application of the treaty is constitutional or if it violates the tenth.

Ah... I see where you're coming from...

The Bond case involves the Federal government intruding into an area left to the states' general police powers.

Cruz is arguing that the DOJ is using the Treaty power to supersede the state's right to prosecute this case, which sets a dangerous precedent. That's all.

The apparent unconstitutional part is whether or not a treaty can confer new legislative power on Congress. Which is strange because Missouri v. Holland seems to imply that it can.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And agreed, although i no longer like Cruz, I'll take his argument over random internetz guy. Its not like he was an AG or anything and argued such cases in the past...

Does that mean we can lock the Benghazi thread, and the ObamaCare thread, and any other thread that is already being argued by people who are experts in those cases?

Apparently we don't need to waste bandwidth for us to theory-hammer stuff like that on a wargaming forum.

Nah... never meant to suppress our debates.

I was merely referencing that Cruz has argued before the SC before and to give him a little slack.

Now, I will also posit that what Cruz is doing now, as a politician, isn't the same as Cruz as the Texas Attorney General. So... you have a point that he's tapping into the crowd's obvious distrust with treaty-anything.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

The case is not about a treaty being or not being constitutional, which is the essence on which Cruz's argument relies on.
The case is focused on whether this particular application of the treaty is constitutional or if it violates the tenth.

Ah... I see where you're coming from...

The Bond case involves the Federal government intruding into an area left to the states' general police powers.

And is a very valid case. I have zero problem with the case at hand and I think it should be up for review. Reading through the arguments on both sides, and the "friend of the court" briefs, makes it clear that it is a pretty complicated issue with the potential to have a very big impact. This case is legit, and the oral arguments are going to be very interesting.

Cruz is arguing that the DOJ is using the Treaty power to supersede the state's right to prosecute this case, which sets a dangerous precedent. That's all.

No he is not. He is arguing that this will lead to the passing and enforcement of unconstitutional treaties.

Article in OP wrote:In his speech, Cruz said the Justice Department is arguing "an absurd proposition" that "could be used as a backdoor way to undermine" Second Amendment rights, among other things.

He says that if the federal government can prosecute under this constitutional treaty, they will later prosecute under unconstitutional treaties.

The apparent unconstitutional part is whether or not a treaty can confer new legislative power on Congress. Which is strange because Missouri v. Holland seems to implied that it can.

And that again is a valid question and should be reviewed. There are certain constrains on the federal government and we need to make sure that they are applied.

The only stupid part in the OP is that Cruz, and others like him, is trying to argue that application of a treaty that is constitutional will lead to the application of a treaty that is not.

 d-usa wrote:

No he is not. He is arguing that this will lead to the passing and enforcement of unconstitutional treaties.

Article in OP wrote:In his speech, Cruz said the Justice Department is arguing "an absurd proposition" that "could be used as a backdoor way to undermine" Second Amendment rights, among other things.

He says that if the federal government can prosecute under this constitutional treaty, they will later prosecute under unconstitutional treaties.

Okay... I'm getting closer to your objection.

I can see it argued from your perspective.

The way I interpreted this was that a treaty, duly passed by Congress/President, could be used to prosecute later... until, or if, someone brings it to the SC.

The Constitutionality of a law/treaty isn't really in question unless it's taken to court. So, theoretically, a treaty can be passed that is found unconstitutional later.

Now... was Cruz's speech hyperbolic? Yeah...
Do I think he's in that Agenda 21 hysteria camp? Nah...

Disclaimer: It's obvious, but I do like Cruz... wished he was my Senator. And no... he'd be a horrible Prez candidate (give me an ex-Governor).

I was trying to figure out a way Cruz's argument might make sense if you make the argument that Treaties bypass the House (needing 2/3 of the Senate), compared to statutes (which need a "simple" majority in both houses), and therefore technically an international treaty could impose new restrictions on gun ownership laws without ever needing to go to the House.

But the thing here is, that's already the case. If the Senate and President pass a constitutional treaty that is stricter on gun rights than States, but again, is still constitutional, they would be allowed to prosecute under Federal law anyway.

So really, all I think Cruz is doing is raising alarms for something that is either A) perfectly fine and legal or B) couldn't happen because the treaty he's imagining would be unconstitutional anyway.

 whembly wrote:

Disclaimer: It's obvious, but I do like Cruz... wished he was my Senator. And no... he'd be a horrible Prez candidate (give me an ex-Governor).

Why does this not shock me at all? But hey, if you want him as your Senator you can! Just have to move to Texas!

Edited to fix Quote tags.

Also, please tell me by ex-Governor you do not mean Perry.

Edit 2: I also find touting of his previous AG time as hilarious. DAGs are appointed. Is it really shocking that a lawyer from Texas got appointed while a guy from Texas was president, and a guy from Texas was AG? It really doesnt mean much, honestly. His time at FTC is also hilarious, given how bad FTC lawyers are, generally speaking.

Texas AGs are elected.

 Frazzled wrote:
Texas AGs are elected.

Same in Oklahoma.

The topic of partisan elections of DA's and AG's is a whole separate topic

 Frazzled wrote:
Texas AGs are elected.

Apologies, when I said DAG I was referring to his time at DOJ. And according to his own Wiki page, Ted Cruz was never a Texas AG. He was appointed by the Texas AG to be Solicitor General. Close, but no cigar, as it were. Until his election to Senator, he had never held an elected position as far as I can find.

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Disclaimer: It's obvious, but I do like Cruz... wished he was my Senator. And no... he'd be a horrible Prez candidate (give me an ex-Governor).

Why does this not shock me at all? But hey, if you want him as your Senator you can! Just have to move to Texas!

I'm thinking about it.

Texas is a cool place.

Edited to fix Quote tags.

Also, please tell me by ex-Governor you do not mean Perry.

nah... Perry burnt his bridges... won't even survive the Primary.

But, I meant any governor. Scott Walker (R), Bill Richardson (D), Chris Cristie (R), Andrew Cuomo (D), etc... Governor's have a fething clue to running the Executive Branch.

So... no Cruz, no Hillary, no other Congress-critter.

Edit 2: I also find touting of his previous AG time as hilarious. DAGs are appointed. Is it really shocking that a lawyer from Texas got appointed while a guy from Texas was president, and a guy from Texas was AG?

So, you're saying he's incompetent?

It really doesnt mean much, honestly. His time at FTC is also hilarious, given how bad FTC lawyers are, generally speaking.

What makes you say that? o.O

 whembly wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Disclaimer: It's obvious, but I do like Cruz... wished he was my Senator. And no... he'd be a horrible Prez candidate (give me an ex-Governor).

Why does this not shock me at all? But hey, if you want him as your Senator you can! Just have to move to Texas!

I'm thinking about it.

Texas is a cool place.

Edited to fix Quote tags.

Also, please tell me by ex-Governor you do not mean Perry.

nah... Perry burnt his bridges... won't even survive the Primary.

But, I meant any governor. Scott Walker (R), Bill Richardson (D), Chris Cristie (R), Andrew Cuomo (D), etc... Governor's have a fething clue to running the Executive Branch.

So... no Cruz, no Hillary, no other Congress-critter.

Edit 2: I also find touting of his previous AG time as hilarious. DAGs are appointed. Is it really shocking that a lawyer from Texas got appointed while a guy from Texas was president, and a guy from Texas was AG?

So, you're saying he's incompetent?

It really doesnt mean much, honestly. His time at FTC is also hilarious, given how bad FTC lawyers are, generally speaking.

What makes you say that? o.O

1. I do hear good things about portions of Texas. (Most) others...

2. Your list of governors is sort of ... awful. I think Scott Walker would be a hard sell to the US in general. Cristie will probably make his run soon though, so we will see how that goes.

3. His having held only appointed positions does not make me think he is incompetent, no. I was just saying that things like "He was an AG, I will take his wor for it!" is meaningless to me. Appointed positions generally just mean you know people, not that you have any real sort of competancy.

4. I work here, and interact with them on a daily basis. Oh the stories... To be fair to Cruz, he was not actually a litigator for FTC anyway. He worked in the Policy office.

All that said, I will not pretend to have a high opinion of the man.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Texas AGs are elected.

Apologies, when I said DAG I was referring to his time at DOJ. And according to his own Wiki page, Ted Cruz was never a Texas AG. He was appointed by the Texas AG to be Solicitor General. Close, but no cigar, as it were. Until his election to Senator, he had never held an elected position as far as I can find.

So he's good enough of a lawyer to be the point of the spear. That must be pretty good actually.

 Frazzled wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Texas AGs are elected.

Apologies, when I said DAG I was referring to his time at DOJ. And according to his own Wiki page, Ted Cruz was never a Texas AG. He was appointed by the Texas AG to be Solicitor General. Close, but no cigar, as it were. Until his election to Senator, he had never held an elected position as far as I can find.

So he's good enough of a lawyer to be the point of the spear. That must be pretty good actually.

He was certainly a fit for Texas, I will grant him that.

 whembly wrote:

But, I meant any governor. Scott Walker (R), Bill Richardson (D), Chris Cristie (R), Andrew Cuomo (D), etc... Governor's have a fething clue to running the Executive Branch.

No, they don't. There is no experience that can prepare a person for the Presidency, especially given the vitriolic nature of American politics.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

But, I meant any governor. Scott Walker (R), Bill Richardson (D), Chris Cristie (R), Andrew Cuomo (D), etc... Governor's have a fething clue to running the Executive Branch.

No, they don't. There is no experience that can prepare a person for the Presidency, especially given the vitriolic nature of American politics.

Really?

They who's your ideal candidate that can prepare him/her for the office pf Presidency?

 whembly wrote:

They who's your ideal candidate that can prepare him/her for the office pf Presidency?

I do not believe there is one.

Not that it matters, as voting for the President is essentially voting for the Party putting him/her up as a candidate.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

They who's your ideal candidate that can prepare him/her for the office pf Presidency?

I do not believe there is one.

Not that it matters, as voting for the President is essentially voting for the Party putting him/her up as a candidate.

Okay... stop there.

If you don't think governors makes good candidates... then what does?

EDIT: What do you think of high ranking officers in the military? CEOs? Sports General Manager?

 whembly wrote:

If you don't think governors makes good candidates... then what does?

That isn't my argument. I did not claim that governors are not good candidates.

My argument is that Governor's are not necessarily qualified to run the Executive Branch by virtue of being (or having been) governors, because the office of the Presidency is unique; especially given the vitriol directed at it.

I also contended that a Presidential candidate is basically a face for the party backing him.