From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 16:11:01 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic locksmiths are watching you (Belgium's ban onPGP)
In-Reply-To: <m0u3YEC-0008x8C@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960401144716.21891A-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Following my new policy on Jim Bell posts, the below represents my new 
form of reply.  These 'terse' replies should cut down on bandwidth and 
still serve as some basic protection to the list readership as to the 
mis and dis-information which eminates in quantity from Mr. Bell's 
account.  Those parties interested in a more detailed discussion, aside 
of course Mr. Bell, should ask for clarification where they feel it 
necessary and I will then expound on my points.

On Sun, 31 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:

> I hope by now you've seen my reply about the treaty issue.  I wasn't 
> particularly focussing on the question of what Europe will do qua Europe, 
> but how the treaty issue could be abused in the US.  Here is the section of 
> the US Constitution which is relevant, and which I mentioned  by reference before:
> 
> Article VI
> ...
> 
> 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 
> Constituion or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
> ...
> 
> 
> I do not believe that this section was intended to mean that the _citizens_ 
> of the US are bound by treaty obligations;

You are incorrect.

 That would be illogical, treaties 
> are agreements between governments. Treaties are inherently intended to 
> govern relations with foreign countries, not legal or political 
> circumstances within a particular country.  Treaties may AFFECT citizens, 
> such as extradition treaties, immigration/emigration treaties, and passport 
> requirements, but the citizen doesn't "agree" with them. 

You are, again, incorrect.

> That's evidenced by the fact that treaties are ratified by only the US 
> Senate, the body with two Senators from each state.  (The House has 
> proportional representation, based on the population of each state.)  The 
> intent, I suggest, was that treaties were supposed to be interpreted as 
> applying to the country, while laws applied to the individual.

You need to study the history of this structural decision.

> (Since you're Canadian, and for other non-US readers, I should point out 
> that when the US Constitution was being drafted and debated,

[Yadda yadda yadda.]

> In any case, since laws can be declared unconstitutional I think it's 
> implicit that there can be such a thing as an "unconstitutional treaty," or 
> at least one if declared to be binding on the citizens would be in violation 
> of the Constitution.  If, for example, the US government decided that it 
> wanted to take away free speech rights from its citizens, to name an 
> obviously fantastic example, it could arguably write a treaty with, say, 
> Mexico, "agreeing" that free-speech rights will not apply to the citizens of 
> each country.  

You need to study the difference between non-executing and self-executing 
treaties.  It is left as an exercise to the reader to determine why, in 
this context, what Mr. Bell suggests would not work.

> merely the government.  I believe there was a treaty in the middle 
1960's called 
> something like "Single Issue Treaty on Narcotics" which led directly to a 
> massive re-write of the drug laws in the US.  In view of the fact that 
> today, probably 70% of the inmates in US prisons are there on drug charges, 
> it is obvious that this treaty had a long-lasting internal effect, far 
> beyond what a person might have expected at the time.

Se above reference to self-executing treaties as to why Mr. Bell is again 
passing the wrong mark.

> Whether or not this interpretation could still work in today's changed 

[Yadda yadda yadda].

> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information