zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. slowmo+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-08-10 21:41:55
> so a (say) UK hate speech law could not be enforced in the US even after the adoption of this treaty.

I believe the conclusion that it can't happen in the U.S. is incorrect.

replies(1): >>tptace+c1
2. tptace+c1[view] [source] 2024-08-10 21:52:38
>>slowmo+(OP)
It obviously cannot happen in the US: neither the executive nor legislative branches have the power to bind any law that contravenes the US Constitution. It would be a pretty big loophole if they could simply agree to treaties to annul 1A. A ratified, enabled treaty is coequal with US federal law, not with the Constitution.
replies(1): >>slowmo+d3
◧◩
3. slowmo+d3[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-10 22:14:03
>>tptace+c1
Extradition clauses allow foreign countries to reach out and pluck Americans from the comfort of their Constitutional freedoms, and the technicality of such extradition provisions, should they be enacted, would allow foreign countries to enforce their laws on U.S. citizens in the U.S.

If you don't think that sort of thing could happen, you should recall that the Trans-Pacific treaty being pushed in the U.S. by the Obama administration included provisions allowing U.N bodies to inspect compliance and sue local governments for things like climate violations (wealth transfer) or even firearms possession and compliance (end-run around the 2nd amendment). That is, these treaties were seen as a way to sneak in enforcement from extra-national entities for rules explicitly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.

That particular treaty was dropped, in part, due to public outcry against it.

Liberty requires maintenance and defense. You cannot simply assume that once we enjoy some particular freedom there is no way to retreat or regress from it such that we lose it. Bureaucrats that cannot be fired by the head of the Executive branch are another example of this erosion by technicality.

So I don't find your conclusion obvious at all. I wish it were so simple.

This kind of rule-making follows the trick of getting the public to trade safety for liberty. The problem is that the same governments have created the lack of safety, provoking the unrest they know seek additional power to quash. We should say no.

replies(1): >>tptace+Y4
◧◩◪
4. tptace+Y4[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-10 22:37:27
>>slowmo+d3
That is not at all how extradition treaties work.
[go to top]