|
|
#41
11-09-2007, 01:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Antigua\'s WTO Case Getting Some Coverage
[ QUOTE ]
Just happy to be here guys. States rights and state sovereignty don't carry any weight here. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause subordinates states’ rights to the national treaty power. When a nation enters into a treaty, it undertakes an international obligation that binds all of its organs (executive, legislative and judicial) and all its constituent jurisdictions (state and federal). A state is responsible for carrying out the obligations of an international agreement. [/ QUOTE ] Am I the only one who takes issue with a foreign entity dictating what laws we can or cannot make? While I may not agree with a state like Utah passing a law against gambling, I do defend there right to do so and I find any treaty or agreement made that hinders there right unacceptable. 
|
|
#42
11-09-2007, 01:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Antigua\'s WTO Case Getting Some Coverage
Utah's state's rights will continue to allow Utah to ban any gambling that takes place solely within the state of Utah.
Gambling on the internet does not (usually) SOLELY take place within the state of Utah. Doing any kind of business on the internet that involves at least one entity outside Utah is INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Interstate commerce is something the Constitution explicitly says the Federal Government must regulate. Thus there is really no states' rights issue with respect to the WTO decision: the Feds either allow internet gambling, or they dont, and Utah is stuck with the result unless it want to leave the US. (There could be some creative way to allow Utah and other states to do some things individually, but that is not under discussion anywhere right now) Skallagrim
|
|
#43
11-09-2007, 01:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Antigua\'s WTO Case Getting Some Coverage
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Just happy to be here guys. States rights and state sovereignty don't carry any weight here. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause subordinates states’ rights to the national treaty power. When a nation enters into a treaty, it undertakes an international obligation that binds all of its organs (executive, legislative and judicial) and all its constituent jurisdictions (state and federal). A state is responsible for carrying out the obligations of an international agreement. [/ QUOTE ] Am I the only one who takes issue with a foreign entity dictating what laws we can or cannot make? While I may not agree with a state like Utah passing a law against gambling, I do defend there right to do so and I find any treaty or agreement made that hinders there right unacceptable. [/ QUOTE ] I believe in states' rights, and I do take issue with the willingness of our government to give away our rights via treaties like GATT. However, it's not like the WTO took these rights from our states. Rather, we gave them to the WTO. I think the U.S. should honor its word. Again, it's not a foreign entity dictate; rather, it's an agreement the U.S. entered into voluntarily. The U.S. gives away many rights in treaties, especially ones on trade. The Senate is the body that represents states...that's why this is the body that ratifies treaties, I guess.
|
|
#44
11-09-2007, 01:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Antigua\'s WTO Case Getting Some Coverage
[ QUOTE ]
Utah is stuck with the result unless it want to leave the US. [/ QUOTE ] They can't really do that unilaterally, either, though I wouldn't mind if they did. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
