4 ms·

> we do not live under world government where sovereign nations are subject to international legal restrictions There is no need for "world government". For ex

> we do not live under world government where sovereign nations are subject to international legal restrictions There is no need for "world government". For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Adoption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_... You know, if human rights didn't transcend nations they probably wouldn't be called that way. And don't US constitution and laws also have things in them that apply to all people, period? Honest question, I don't know in detail; but I do know "you" signed the above -- sure it's not enforcable, but that doesn't give you the moral high ground, too.

rayiner 13y ago
Peanuts are neither peas nor nuts, but rather legumes, and despite the use of the word "right" in the UDHR, the document does not actually create any legal restrictions. Also, it has no signatories. It was passed by voice vote, with "yea" votes including the U.S. and other wonderful rights-loving countries like China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Liberia, etc.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  Yeah but that still leaves the laws the US gives itself, see other reply.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Of course the U.S. could pass laws or Constitutional amendments limiting how the government can treat foreigners on foreign soil, though even then are questions of enforceability. The executive was designed to be able to exercise all of the powers of the European sovereigns when it came to the world outside the U.S. Meanwhile, the courts are fundamentally domestic institutions. So if Congress created a law banning the President from conducting drone strikes of foreign nationals in Afghanistan, and someone sued the President in federal court to enforce that law, there would be multiple separation of powers problems. First, the law is quite possibly an impermissible impingement by Congress onto the military discretion of the President. Second, even hearing the case would quite possibly be an impermissible impingement by the judiciary into political affairs.
bmelton 13y ago
The problem lies where the UDHR doesn't hold to local values. In the US, for example, we have codified the second amendment in our Constitution. Most other nations don't share this belief. In Iran, the stoning of adulterers could be seen as religious expression, though the most of the world doesn't share that view. In short, the UDHR, at least as it exists currently, doesn't allow for heterogeneity. In some cases, that may be clearly right, and in other cases, it may be clearly wrong -- but only from a particular point of view, and only by imposing value judgements... and with value judgements, more often than not, there is no clear, demonstrable answer. > And don't US constitution and laws also have things in them that apply to all people, period? I think what you're referring to is the content of the fourteenth amendment. Ironically enough, not a part of the original Constitution or Bill of Rights, but it is there, though it only applies to US citizenry. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  > though it only applies to US citizenry Oh? I always read the "any person" as being distinct from "citizens". As in, citizens get "privileges", but everybody gets due process. And the first thing I just looked at seemed to confirm just that: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar... (it's a PDF sorry) > Given this record, it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens. But the presumption is wrong in many more respects than it is right. While some distinctions between foreign nationals and citizens are normatively justified and consistent with constitutional and international law, most are not. The significance of the citizen/noncitizen distinction is more often presumed than carefully examined. Upon examination, there is far less to the distinction than commonly thought. In particular, foreign nationals are generally entitled to the equal protection of the laws, to political freedoms of speech and association, and to due process requirements of fair procedure where their lives, liberty, or property are at stake. But of course, rights are presumed to not even exist are even more useless than those that aren't enforced :/

rayiner 13y ago

Peanuts are neither peas nor nuts, but rather legumes, and despite the use of the word "right" in the UDHR, the document does not actually create any legal restrictions. Also, it has no signatories. It was passed by voice vote, with "yea" votes including the U.S. and other wonderful rights-loving countries like China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Liberia, etc.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
Yeah but that still leaves the laws the US gives itself, see other reply.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Of course the U.S. could pass laws or Constitutional amendments limiting how the government can treat foreigners on foreign soil, though even then are questions of enforceability. The executive was designed to be able to exercise all of the powers of the European sovereigns when it came to the world outside the U.S. Meanwhile, the courts are fundamentally domestic institutions. So if Congress created a law banning the President from conducting drone strikes of foreign nationals in Afghanistan, and someone sued the President in federal court to enforce that law, there would be multiple separation of powers problems. First, the law is quite possibly an impermissible impingement by Congress onto the military discretion of the President. Second, even hearing the case would quite possibly be an impermissible impingement by the judiciary into political affairs.

bmelton 13y ago

The problem lies where the UDHR doesn't hold to local values. In the US, for example, we have codified the second amendment in our Constitution. Most other nations don't share this belief. In Iran, the stoning of adulterers could be seen as religious expression, though the most of the world doesn't share that view. In short, the UDHR, at least as it exists currently, doesn't allow for heterogeneity. In some cases, that may be clearly right, and in other cases, it may be clearly wrong -- but only from a particular point of view, and only by imposing value judgements... and with value judgements, more often than not, there is no clear, demonstrable answer. > And don't US constitution and laws also have things in them that apply to all people, period? I think what you're referring to is the content of the fourteenth amendment. Ironically enough, not a part of the original Constitution or Bill of Rights, but it is there, though it only applies to US citizenry. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
> though it only applies to US citizenry Oh? I always read the "any person" as being distinct from "citizens". As in, citizens get "privileges", but everybody gets due process. And the first thing I just looked at seemed to confirm just that: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar... (it's a PDF sorry) > Given this record, it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens. But the presumption is wrong in many more respects than it is right. While some distinctions between foreign nationals and citizens are normatively justified and consistent with constitutional and international law, most are not. The significance of the citizen/noncitizen distinction is more often presumed than carefully examined. Upon examination, there is far less to the distinction than commonly thought. In particular, foreign nationals are generally entitled to the equal protection of the laws, to political freedoms of speech and association, and to due process requirements of fair procedure where their lives, liberty, or property are at stake. But of course, rights are presumed to not even exist are even more useless than those that aren't enforced :/