Comments on: We *told* you UN treaties were a problem http://overlawyered.com/2012/11/we-told-un-treaties-problem/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Mon, 02 Mar 2015 17:52:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1 By: silverpie http://overlawyered.com/2012/11/we-told-un-treaties-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-184883 Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:44:21 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=34268#comment-184883 This is just my non-expert reading, but it sounds like a country can legalize it, with the proviso that they have to deal with their locals who are helping smuggle it into places that don’t allow it. (kind of like paragraph 2 of the 21st Amendment)

]]>
By: Jose http://overlawyered.com/2012/11/we-told-un-treaties-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-184865 Sun, 25 Nov 2012 20:49:26 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=34268#comment-184865 Also note only “the leaves of the cannabis plant” are being specified. This leaves us with seeds and flowers/buds.

]]>
By: Jose http://overlawyered.com/2012/11/we-told-un-treaties-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-184834 Sat, 24 Nov 2012 20:31:56 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=34268#comment-184834 The answer is in the text “adopt such measures as may be necessary to prevent the misuse of, and illicit traffic in, the leaves of the cannabis plant.”

Since it is now legal it is no longer illicit. If it is used responsibly it is not being misused.

Case closed.

]]>
By: John David Galt http://overlawyered.com/2012/11/we-told-un-treaties-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-184833 Sat, 24 Nov 2012 20:10:15 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=34268#comment-184833 The treaty does have a clause in it allowing withdrawal. The President simply has to give notice to the UN.

I’m not sure if it’s his unilateral decision or Congress has to be involved, but asking him to do it can’t hurt.

]]>
By: Anonymous Nicholas http://overlawyered.com/2012/11/we-told-un-treaties-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-184829 Sat, 24 Nov 2012 18:05:11 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=34268#comment-184829 AMcA, it’s called “ratifying a treaty” and it’s pretty much the exact opposite of outsourcing our sovereignty, seeing as how it is a domestic democratic process to agree to a proposal.

]]>
By: David Schwartz http://overlawyered.com/2012/11/we-told-un-treaties-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-184797 Fri, 23 Nov 2012 22:25:35 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=34268#comment-184797 Spodula: It still violates Federal law even if it doesn’t violate State law.

]]>
By: AMcA http://overlawyered.com/2012/11/we-told-un-treaties-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-184789 Fri, 23 Nov 2012 17:37:03 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=34268#comment-184789 This is what happens when we outsource our sovereignty.

Sorry, folks, this is no longer under your control. Report to the General Secretary’s office immediately for your spanking.

]]>
By: Bill Alexander http://overlawyered.com/2012/11/we-told-un-treaties-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-184785 Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:50:17 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=34268#comment-184785 No US money, no UN.

]]>
By: Jim Collins http://overlawyered.com/2012/11/we-told-un-treaties-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-184782 Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:43:13 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=34268#comment-184782 No UN, no problem.

]]>
By: Malcolm http://overlawyered.com/2012/11/we-told-un-treaties-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-184766 Fri, 23 Nov 2012 01:52:24 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=34268#comment-184766 AAAA – But it this way: suppose the people of the United State petition their Government to change a law. The Government then replies: “We’re sorry, but we’ve already promised foreign powers that we will govern you in this manner, and we can’t break our promise.”
What would be your reaction? Surely it would be: “The government is supposed to be our servant, not our master. It has no mandate to make promises to us, but it cannot make promises to foreigners about how we will be governed.”
Making promises to foreigners about how those foreigners will be treated is, of course, a different matter.

]]>