politics

parent

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

That part of the constitution only says that federal overrules state. Meaning states can't make laws that disagree with federal laws or treaties. By your interpretation, states would be responsible for enforcing federal laws, which is clearly not the case. This is a well established interpretation of this part of the constitution and is taught in most high schools.

parent

[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

Right, just ignore that "treaties" are "the supreme Law of the Land", which was the entire point of this quote.

International treaties are in fact of the same rank as federal law and the constitution in the US as per this article, which is even broader then the mere "ratified treaties are law" statement I made earlier, which I was trying to prove here after you called me stupid and confidently incorrect for it.

Dude, at this point let us just agree to disagree, because from my point of view you seem impervious to reason; As I probably do from yours. So let's just cut our losses and part amicably. Good bye.

parent

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

I didn't ignore it. It specifically means states can't make laws that go against the treaties. That is all. It does not mean they are laws like any other law. Congress passes laws to say things are bad. Not everything that is technically a law is the same as something that a person can be put on trial for. But speaking of things being ignored. You ignored that congress has refused to approve any of the updates to the geneva convention. So you would have to check if the things that were done are even in the part they ratified. Even if they are, by not ratifying the updates, they have made clear they no longer support it. So again, it is highly questionable as to if the things they did ratify can be considered laws like normal bills that are drafted and passed by congress.

parent

[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 1 point 7 months ago

I didn’t ignore it. It specifically means states can’t make laws that go against the treaties. That is all. It does not mean they are laws like any other law. Congress passes laws to say things are bad. Not everything that is technically a law is the same as something that a person can be put on trial for.

The part you ignored is where international treaties are called "International Law", and "supreme Law of the Land"; They are therefore a law in a general sense of the word. As in "a piece of text defining rules of conduct".

Also they are ratified by Congress (the Senate specifically), and are enforced by the contracting parties inside their own jurisdictions; So they are technically equivalent to a federal law (not just in the US, in most jurisdictions I'm aware of), insofar as de jure they have to be treated like one by the executive and judicial branches. So not sure why you are even trying to make up this distinction without a difference here.

But speaking of things being ignored. You ignored that congress has refused to approve any of the updates to the geneva convention.

Yeah I ignored that because it's irrelevant and also incorrect. The US ratified Protocol III from 2005.

So you would have to check if the things that were done are even in the part they ratified.

The rule in question is derived from Article 12 of the Second Geneva Convention from 1949, which the US also ratified. Also you seem to be suggesting that the DoD released a manual discussing rules which don't apply to them, which seems bonkers.

Even if they are, by not ratifying the updates, they have made clear they no longer support it.

Not how this works. If you want to no longer be bound by a contract you cancel it. The US did not do so. They could, but they did not.

So again, it is highly questionable as to if the things they did ratify can be considered laws like normal bills that are drafted and passed by congress.

To you maybe.