ICC: a feature, not a bugNick: "Which is not to say that i'm opposed to International Courts. Quite the opposite, i'm heavily in favor of international justice when it actually targets criminals. Unfortunately, organizations like the ICC seemed destined to waste their time blowing smoke at the Good Guys. Why don't critics of the US ICC policy ever consider that our Constitution may not allow our participation?" Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. If the US cedes jurisdiction to the ICC, it would be legal because treaties are generally determined to supercede the Constitution. This, of course, is exactly what proponents of the ICC want, for international law to override our national sovereignty. UPDATE: Byron Scott comments: Notice these same people aren't filing cases against Saddam Hussein and his cronies for using civilians as human shields, filling mass graves, gassing civilians, using elementary schools and hospitals as military outposts, etc. |
Comments:
Post a Comment
