IP: RE: Asked my lawyer about this Treaties

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> From: Anthony Dye <ADye () evokesoft com>
> To: "'farber () cis upenn edu'" <farber () cis upenn edu>
> Subject: RE: Asked my lawyer about this Treaties
> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:29:43 -0700
> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
>
> Dave,
>         You're welcome to distribute this if you find it interesting...
>
> The House was supposed to be the representative of the interest of the
> people, and the Senate that of the States. Since treaties traditionally
> didn't really affect the people as a whole, there's no nead for the people's
> Representative to vote on the issue. The President, as the head of the
> republic, and the Senate, as the representative of the interests of the
> States, are traditionally the only parties with any vested interest. I don't
> know of any other treaties that allow foreign nations to take action against
> specific US corporations or individuals. Even extradition treaties don't do
> this.
>
> The same sort of logic can be found in the provision that requires tax bills
> to originate in the House. The people's representative should initiate
> taxation, not the State's.
>
> Of course, the 17th (IIRC) amendment changed all that by causing Senators to
> be elected by the people, not the state legislature.... arguably a severe
> erosion of State's rights.
>
> As for my own opinion, I can't imagine why a nation which enjoys, perhaps,
> the best system of government in history would want to subject itself to the
> whims of the judiciary in any other nation, even our allies'. I can't see
> the UK or China signing this treaty either, and the nationalist factions in
> Russia will have a fit.
>
> Signing this will gain us nothing, and cost us significantly more than your
> garden variety trade pact.
>
> -Tony



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/