winter wrote: 
Yes, it was.  However, George did make exception to his principle concerning temporary alliances in time of war - as distinct from long-term alliances like say, NATO or the UN.

 buzz wrote: 
I'd prefer my daughter live in country with laws based on logic, reason and equality not any religion.  Too bad Vulcan is a made up place.  Gene Roddenberry was way ahead of his time.  Christianity, while its current practitioners are not as blatant about it, is just as misogynistic as Islam.  Ever been a girl in a christian community?  Its not a very equal place to be.  That is one of the reasons I reject organized religion.  I got tired of being told I was lesser because I had a uterus.  At least I think I have one, I've never actually tested the theory.

When was the last time you voted for someone who did as promised?  I've always referred to elections as choosing the least of the evils.  I wish we could execute reform guaranteeing us the right to a lobbyist free government; politicians who do as they are asked to by those they represent; justices who rule based on law and reason instead of their own personal agendas.  It's bizarre that we even have to vote on this in any state.  Why wouldn't ruling be based on our own laws?  But then again, how many rulings are based on deals, agendas, personal views and political alliances?

I know, I know.  I 'm a dreamer.

 oldslabsides wrote: 
I know. (Although wasn't it Washington who allied us with the French during the Revolution?)

You and I disagree on that point. But you knew that already.

 winter wrote: 
What I'm uncomfortable with (so was George Washington, BTW) is foreign policy dominated by treaties and alliances.

 buzz wrote: 
My point is that we already live under international laws in the form of treaties - we have for over 200 years. It's not news, and those treaties are signed by the President and ratified by the Senate. Our representatives get a say in them. If they don't find them in the best interests of the US and its people, they don't commit us to them. If we disagree with our representatives on that, we elect someone whose views and values are more in line with our own.

And I'm not opposed to Judeo/Christian values per se any more than I'm in favor of Sharia law. I'm opposed to murder, lying, theft, etc. (I'm a little less comfortable with keeping the Sabbath or having no gods before God, but that's me.) I'm saying that you can't say "Sorry, Muslims, your religious laws are out. Only ours are acceptable." Either all religions (and irreligions) are equal in the eyes of the law, or they're not. If you're going to rule one out, you have to rule them all out.

I'd leave out the specific exclusion of Sharia law just like I'd leave out the specific exclusion of Buddhist law or Zoroastrian law or rabbinical law or Catholic law. Keep it simple. Interpret the laws of the US and the state as written - that's the job of a judge. You can't list all possible stuff to exclude ("also judges should not use dice to make decisions, or flip coins, or employ any other methods of chance - oh, and Ouija boards and Tarot cards are right out"), so it doesn't make sense to me to start.

 winter wrote: 
The issue is that we elect state and federal legislators to represent us in the law making process. In theory, they are accountable to the citizenry. Would you really be comfortable with unknown people in The Hague creating the laws you live under? The upside of this would be that we could cancel that pesky election day. It would no longer be necessary.
 
Yes, our laws are based on Judeo/Christian values. Would you prefer that your daughter live in a country whose laws are based on The Ten Commandments like ours is, or a country like Iran, with Sharia Law?
 
There have been instances lately of judges wanting to use International Law in place of US law when making decisions. 

 oldslabsides wrote: 
Fair enough. (EDIT: Although I can't see how we could get along without it short of having fifty separate countries with fifty separate foreign policies. If you're going to let the federal government handle international relations and foreign policy, you can't let each state decide which treaties it won't follow.) But you can't just ignore it any more than you could, say, the Second Amendment.

Or, in my state's case, the Fourteenth.

 winter wrote: 
Never did care much for article 6.

 kurtster wrote: 
Is there really that much of a danger of judges imposing Sharia in Oklahoma?

And I hope for their sake they don't have the Ten Commandments or any other overtly Christian symbols around the courthouses. Christian law is okay, but Islamic law is out? Hmm. Could be seen as discriminatory.

The international law bit throws me a little. Article 6 of the Constitution specifies that duly authorized treaties entered into by the federal government take precedence just after the Constitution and before any state laws.

 Manbird wrote:
See,these are the words from a thinking man !
Manbird for President and Chief of UN !

 kurtster wrote: 
That depends on what the stone-throwers consume to provide their bodies energy to throw the stones. And how did they get to the stone-throwing site? Walk? Ride donkeys? Drive a 1969 Ford Galaxy 500? Are the stones man-made? Were they transported there or do they occur naturally in the immediate area? 

 buzz wrote: 
You know, you are quite right about that.  It is carbon neutral.  Perhaps, I was too hasty.

 kurtster wrote: 
cant we just make one little exception for honor killings? and maybe just one more so we can stone people to death. it is way more green than electrocution.

 kurtster wrote:  NFL

 buzz wrote: 

No, definitely not good for our country either.  Besides, I love women. 

Probably overkill because The US Constitution already guarentees a seperation between Church and State, which Sharia Law is clearly not in keeping with that.  That would be a State endorsement of a particular religion.

But you never know, cause most politicians wipe their posterior with the Constitution.

 buzz wrote: 
That is a tough question.

 kurtster wrote: 
what? you dont think Sharia law is a good thing?

 kurtster wrote:  UhOh.

Good for Oklahoma.  This should be the United States' next Constitutional Amendment.

Oklahoma International Law Amendment, State Question 755 (2010)

The Oklahoma International Law Amendment will appear on the November 2, 2010 general election ballot in the state of Oklahoma as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The measure would require that courts rely on federal or state laws when handing down decisions concerning cases and would prohibit them from using international law or Sharia law when making rulings.