Uruguay Violating Treaties by Legalizing Cannabis say's UN.

[headband 707]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...eaties-by-legalizing-marijuana-un-agency-says

 

[supermanlives]

I wish someone would tell the usa govment to fuck off. so much bullshit because of a plant. I demand in god we trust taken off all money lol

 

[headband 707]

Take note of what the UN is saying about cannabis and what it does lol

Take note of what the UN is saying about cannabis and what it does lol

I will always support any country that uses cannabis as a way to help their ppl. Although I was amazed at the UN's stance on cannabis .. This is the USA /DEA for sure. I hope ppl take note of what the UN is actually telling countries. If the UN was truly concerned about ppl then why don't they go after GMO's?/Fluoride etc. What a bunch of BULLSHIT!! You go Uruguay!!! stay frosty headband 707:biggrin

 

[trichrider]

I wish someone would tell the usa govment to fuck off. so much bullshit because of a plant. I demand in god we trust taken off all money lol

!!!
i demand they begin stamping it on gold coin.

 

[supermanlives]

in gold we trust

 

[LEF]

I agree

fuck the un and the us government

go uruguay

 

[m314]

Some treaties were meant to be violated. Uruguay will just be the first of many countries to legalize.

 

[bobblehead]

How is Uruguay different from colorado and washington state? The article says b/c the feds reserve the right to intervene? Yeah, ok. The article also says more states and countries have plans for legalization. I think the UN can fuck off on this one.

 

[trichrider]

UN was made by US, so yeah...

 

[Harry Gypsna]

They can withdraw from the treaty. Simples.

 

[HempKat]

Well from what I can tell, the treaty needs to be thrown out anyway because it's based on faulty unproven claims that came out of a period when most of the world was still ignorant to what marijuana was or what it was capable of.

"Cannabis is controlled under the 1961 Convention, which requires States Parties to limit its use to medical and scientific purposes, due to its dependence-producing potential."

"Cannabis is not only addictive but may also affect some fundamental brain functions, IQ potential, and academic and job performance and impair driving skills," the Vienna-based INCB said in a statement. "Smoking cannabis is more carcinogenic than smoking tobacco."

To the best of my knowledge not only is there no evidence supporting any of the claims highlighted in bold, but there is actually quite a bit of anecdotal/circumstantial evidence that suggests the opposites of these claims are closer to the truth.

 

[Slim Pickens]

It's interesting that Raymond Yans,who is President of the International Narcotics Control Board (UN) that is doing all the finger wagging at Uruguay,is from Belgium,where Cannabis is decriminalized.It is reportedly within the law to have a small amount on you,or to cultivate a single plant for personal use.

In other words,he seems to be bellowing about Uruguay legalizing,all the while Cannabis is already decrim'd in Belgium.

Makes sense yeah?..and yes,the UN is just a puppet of the US.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Fuck the UN. Globalist puppets for the financial oligarchs.

 

[bigAl25]

It's already been said, but I will say it again: Fuck the UN. I have now placed Uruguay, Colorado and Washington on my bucket vacation list, sorry Jamaica you will have to wait a bit longer for my wife's and I return. Hell the price for our all inclusive trips have increased so much I'd rather drive to our vacation spots instead of flying. At least I can listen to Classic vinyl and classic rewind on the way in my pioneer powered Terrain. Peace and respect Uruguay, that's the way to show the world some balls baby.

 

[bentom187]

This should shed some light about treaties abroad and in the US.It seems the US is impotent to protect anyone from anything , the executive branch is supreme enforcer of the law here, as he can take executive actions (XO's) and have the DOJ prosecute . If it acquiesces to the UN then we are just as screwed. And it seems that is the way it is going.

This should raise some eye brows too.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release December 17, 2009

Executive Order — Amending Executive Order 12425

EXECUTIVE ORDER
- – - – - – -
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

What is a Treaty?



Treaties are a serious legal undertaking both in international and domestic law. Internationally, once in force, treaties are binding on the parties and become part of international law. Domestically, treaties to which the United States is a party are equivalent in status to Federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls "the supreme Law of the Land." However, the word treaty does not have the same meaning in the United States and in international law. Under international law, a "treaty" is any legally binding agreement between nations. In the United States, the word treaty is reserved for an agreement that is made "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution). International agreements not submitted to the Senate are known as "executive agreements" in the United States, but they are considered treaties and therefore binding under international law.[/ Source: Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate: A Study (prepared for the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, S. Print 106-71, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 1.

[/QUOTE]

Treaties as Law of the Land

But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract—when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract, before it can become a rule for the Court.”270 To the same effect, but more accurate, is Justice Miller’s language for the Court a half century later, in the Head Money Cases: “A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations. It depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and the honor of the governments which are parties of it.... But a treaty may also contain provisions which confer certain rights upon the citizens or subjects of one of the nations residing in the territorial limits of the other, which partake of the nature of municipal law, and which are capable of enforcement as between private parties in the courts of the country.”271

“A treaty cannot be the Supreme law of the land, that is of all the United States, if any act of a State Legislature can stand in its way. If the constitution of a State . . . must give way to a treaty, and fall before it; can it be questioned, whether the less power, an act of the state legislature, must not be prostrate? It is the declared will of the people of the United States that every treaty made, by the authority of the United States shall be superior to the Constitution and laws of any individual State; and their will alone is to decide.”280

Cross talk from a different forum ( ""The U.S. Constitution is a PUBLIC TRUST.
The U.S. Constitution is a CHARITABLE TRUST.

... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, ...."

The FOUNDERS (SETTLORS) made themselves and their descendants BENEFICIARIES of the Constitution of the United States. ")

What is a Trust?

A Trust can be described as a legal relationship created by a person (known as the Founder),

It is their will. We have no say.

Resolution of the issue seems particularly one for the attention of the legislative and executive branches rather than for the courts

The answer is, that neither has any intrinsic superiority over the other and that therefore the one of later date will prevail leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. In short, the treaty commitments of the United States do not diminish Congress’ constitutional powers. To be sure, legislative repeal of a treaty as law of the land may amount to a violation of it as an international contract in the judgment of the other party to it. In such case, as the Court has said: “Its infraction becomes the subject of international negotiations and reclamations, so far as the injured party chooses to seek redress, which may in the end be enforced by actual war. It is obvious that with all this the judicial courts have nothing to do and can give no redress.”307

In Foster v. Neilson,316 Chief Justice Marshall explained that a treaty is to be regarded in courts “as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision.”

“Treaty provisions which define the rights and obligations of private individuals and lay down general principles for the guidance of military, naval or administrative officials in relation thereto are usually considered self-executing. Thus treaty provisions assuring aliens equal civil rights with citizens, defining the limits of national jurisdiction, and prescribing rules of prize, war and neutrality, have been so considered ... .”

In a word, the treaty-power cannot purport to amend the Constitution by adding to the list of Congress’ enumerated powers, but having acted, the consequence will often be that it has provided Congress with an opportunity to enact measures which independently of a treaty Congress could not pass; the only question that can be raised as to such measures is whether they are “necessary and proper” measures for the carrying of the treaty in question into operation.