Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Party Affiliation

Party Affiliation does not belong in the introductory area unless it is of historic importance. Take a look at Clinton, Bush sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, etc. ; none have it there. (At least they didn't until yesterday, when someone added it to Clinton's because they objected to it being deleted from this page.) ChessPlayer 17:21, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I would say, rather, that it belongs on all the Presidents, except for Washington. Meelar 17:40, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
It is on all presidents....just not in the intro area, its in the box on the right. There is no need to say it in the intro, thats where the specific historic info on the president is best said. No need to say it in the box and again in the intro, that's clutter. The box gives the facts like that; the intro says in words what's historic. ChessPlayer 18:09, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
I was actually about to amend my remarks when I wandered off. Now that I'm back, I agree. Meelar 18:28, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

First ladies' names

A quick sampling suggests that all the First Ladies are listed by their maiden names, so Laura Welch would be consistent. I guess one reason is to save space, since their married names are obvious. --wwoods 23:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

their married names are obvious -- not in terms of usage. Hillary Clinton preferred to continue her unmarried name of Hillary Rodham, changing usage when it appeared a political liability to her husband. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:13, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
But that didn't happen during Clinton's Presidency, but when he was running for governor of Arkansas. She never referred to herself as Hillary Rodham once he became governor. RickK 03:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Granted, but what I'm saying is that with modern usage, what was once obvious, isn't necessarily any more. Then we have Eleanor Roosevelt. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:24, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

wwoods is right. And why prevent me from adding the presidents table? It's in the articles of most other Presidents. --65.73.0.137

If you want to say "George W. Bush married Laura Welch", then that's fine, but as First Lady, she's Laura Bush, or Laura Welch Bush. RickK 03:15, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that. These are articles on Presidents, not family tree geneology. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:25, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

On that note, I do think it would be nice to have a short geneology of each president. Kevin Baas 22:54, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Afghanistan war

Apparently some do not want to include that the Taliban had asked for proof that bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks but the Bush administration refused to negotiate and went to war. The Taliban had offered to extradite Bin Laden to a third country. I think it is noteworthy. Get-back-world-respect 01:47, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't disagree but you might want to rewrite what you wrote.
Though the original intent of the strikes was to destroy terrorist infrastructures and training camps, when the Taliban asked to see proof that bin Laden was behind the attacks the United States refused and instead threatened the Taliban with military action.
As written this doesn't flow at all. What does the "original intent of the strikes" have to do with the Taliban asking for proof and the U.S. refusing? I don't see the connection. Mdchachi|Talk 14:50, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree it is not terribly well written. I just reincluded what someone had deleted. Sorry, I have no time to improve on it. Get-back-world-respect 16:24, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
OK, I will take care of it. Mdchachi|Talk 17:01, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Right, it needs a comma between "attacks" and "the". This is usually refered to as a "minor edit", and usually people make the minor edit instead of removing the sentence from the page. That is usually refered to as "suppression". Kevin Baas 17:41, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Are you talking to me? I didn't even touch the passage yet and I wasn't the one who deleted it. Anyway a missing comma is not what I was talking about. Mdchachi|Talk 19:25, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
I did not mean to direct my comment to any single person. It was indented from yours, but I did not mean it as a response to your comment. It is in regard to the general topic. I never considered you responsible for any actions. I don't know who deleted it, but that part of my comment is certainly directed at that person, whoever they may be. I apologize if my comment was construed as an insinuation critical of you in any way. I know that you were not talking about a missing comma, I was just trying to make a point, and not to you, but to whoever deleted the comment. Point being that when the information is imnportant and factually correct, one does not remove it for syntactical, stylistic, grammatical, or aesthetic reasons. One corrects it so as to clarify the truth. Everyone knows this, and noone is fooled into thinking that this obstructive behavior was not motivated by opinion that felt threatened by fact. Again, I am not directing this part of my comment at you, but whoever deleted the statement. I aplogize for any ill feelings that may have resulted. Kevin Baas 20:50, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
It was SFontaine without edit summary: [1] Only things to be found on his user page: S means Spencer and RickK told him not to vandalize Wikipedia articles on April 28, 2004. Get-back-world-respect 00:23, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I have plans to edit changes on the invasion of Afghanistan. I don't agree with the U.S. not giving evidence or the Taliban offering to try bin Laden in a court. If there's any questions, please ask now. --65.73.0.137

Please log in before editing this hotly debated article. If you "do not agree", do you have any source suggesting that the US did give evidence to the Taliban? I saw sources claiming that the Taliban offered to extradite Bin Laden to a neutral country. Try and google into it. Get-back-world-respect 13:28, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

According to this link it seems to me that when the attack became imminent, the Taliban had decided not to extradite Bin Laden to any country without proof. Does anyone know more about this? Get-back-world-respect 13:54, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Bush personifies dislike of U.S.

I moved this paragraph here for elaboration:

Bush is extremely unpopular in most of the world outside the US, with many holding a dislike of his person and policies – even amongst a significant part of the populations of US allies such as the UK. He is quite often seen as the personification of all that people dislike about the US.

I will not argue with this on its face, but we need more: what is it about the US that others dislike? The response may be more interesting than the assertion because it can reveal not only valid complaints but ingrained prejudice. We also require some kind of citation other than the original writer's sentiment. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:58, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

There already is an article "anti-American sentiment", which, ironically, also covers why the title is incorrect. I added it to the paragraph and reincluded it because as we all know it is one of Bush's biggest accomplishments to unite large parts of the world. Get-back-world-respect 16:42, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Wow! That's some article. Seems to be that, among the valid points, there is a good dose of pot-kettle-black. Going by the universal principle, "The All-Seeing Eye Sees All, But Cannot See Itself" do we have much non-U.S. introspection into its their issues of envy, self-interest, nationalistic and cultural hubris, and bigotry? All have to read it in toto when I have the chance. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:22, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
There is the funny thing about the anti-american sentiment. As a European who has lived a long time in the USA (actually in Texas ;-)), and now living back in Europe, I find that these sentiments are never clearly explained. I can only come to two conclusions about it.
  • They are based on ignorance especially because of the biased and agenda-based media in Europe
  • It seems people don't want to explain that their sentiments are based on jealousy. They are threatened by the ease American "just do it", while they ponder a long time about the best way to do things.
I personally find, that both sides (Americans and Europeans) need to understand first more the other side before use all those prejudice which at the end is in the best case only half-truth anyway
Txwikinger 18:44, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Look at the "anti-American sentiment" article for explanations. I doubt that many people envy the United States for its president, the wars, or the treatment of prisoners. As for "biased and agenda-based media in Europe", I have never seen anything similar in Europe to the US Congress deciding to rename French fries to "freedom fries", the New York Times and International Herald Tribune stating that "Chirac and his poodle Putin have severely damaged the United Nations", the Wall Street Journal calling Chirac "a balding Joan of Arc in drag" ("The Rat that Roared": Christopher Hitchens), and The Washington Post labelling Kofi Annan's concern for the lives of innocent civilians an "offense". I agree though that the state dominated television stations in Berlusconi's Italy and Aznar's Spain tried to spread pro-Bush propaganda. Get-back-world-respect 21:40, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually our national (Irish) TV station, RTÉ was obviously anti-war (oh yes, no coalitions here, everything was US-led this, US-led that! Amazing how you can spin the truth!). But they didn't pretend to be unbiased. Compare to FOX News - man I couldn't watch that station - barf - they allege to be the truth and impartial and all - and a more biased station you would be hard put to find! Yikes! I find it quite scary - especially considering the support it enjoys! What about that newspaper columnist in Canada remarking that it was good for comedy that they would be getting FOX News in Canada (I'd agree but that I think it's no laughing matter!). The reaction from FOX viewers was nothing short of a ready and waiting mini-army! (OK, I exaggerate, but the violent reaction shown was unhealthy) Zoney 23:00, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Zoney: Legally, politically, logistically, and practically, it is, quite literally and objectively, "U.S. led". This is factual information. Yet you contend that this suggests "bias" and inaccuracy. Perhaps if it was more opinionated in a certain direction you would consider it less "bias"?

Txwikinger: You've been to Texas - most Americans are not proud of that state. You said that you can appreciate the "just do it" attitude? That sounds a little naive. You reap what you sow. If you don't think carefully and critically about decisions that have far-reaching ramifications, you shouldn't expect very much in return, because you won't get it. It is not wise to not think things through. That would be an oxymoron.

You talk about "ease" - that's delusional. Difficult things are never easy, and there will always be difficult things. If you don't give difficult problems arduous and comprehensive consideration, you're going to end up making things worse - a life of ease, yes, but with eyes closed and the world exploding around you. Threatened by ease? No. Threatened by those who harbor the illusion that truth is easy - threatened by the consequences of this kind of thinking.

Many of us in America are absolutely disgusted with the foolish notions that you learned from Texas. We find safety in the knowledge that there are many peopele outside the U.S. who do not think as these young Texans do. (or fail to do)

Yesterday I talked to a girl who's under 18 and just had a miscarriage. She was sad - she wanted to have the child, she was proud of it. She's unemployed, uneducated, still living with her parents and dependant on others, and the father does not care for her or the child. Yet, she's proud of her decision, and grieves that she cannot be a mother. Ofcourse she can't be a mother: she's a child, in body and mind. I find this greatly disturbing. All of this would have been disturbing enough, but the word "proud" I cannot add to without my whole world falling into disrepair and utter insanity.

I get this same feeling when I think of these Texans: Proud of their indiscretion. Proud of their ignorance and recklessness. Proud of being fools. And full of such idiotic inversions as you've expressed to me: to see imprudence as prudence, mental laziness as thought, and blind faith as "love for one's country".

You say this is better? You say this is more enlightened? How ridiculous! You live in a country where people are actually aware of what's going on around them. I envy that, and you not only fail to appreciate it but would do away with it? Learn a few more things about this war. There are facts and there are beliefs. The facts about the actions of the Bush administration and the settings and ramifactions of those actions are clear and unambiguous. Kevin Baas 19:00, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Kevin, we are in the middle of a war, whether we like it or not. Perhaps a major difference between most of the US and much of Europe is that the US (and the Islamists) see this as an ongoing conflict, while many Europeans think that if they keep their heads low and don't provoke the Islamist side, the war is over. I am impressed by your use of the biblical term "you reap what you sow." The Islamists continue to sow, Europe continues to sow. Will Europe reap peace, or will they bitterly recall Churchill's admonition to Chamberlain: ""You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Ask the people of Spain what they chose when they decided to elect a government which is withdrawing their troops from Iraq. Perhaps they feel that the murder of 200 completely innocent people, a war crime, is what they reaped for supplying non-combat troops to Iraq. But when they did that they sowed something else, the understanding that violence can beget surrender instead of resistance. Has Spain reaped all that it will? Has Europe? -- Cecropia | Talk 19:30, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
May I remind you that this is a discussion of the article about Bush? It is interesting to discuss our political views as well, but this is not the right place to do it extensively. Kevin, please remain calm and do not write as if all Texans where stupid. Cecropia, why do you continue to write here instead on your talk page as we agree we should? I am afraid I cannot help to remind you that it was Bush and no European who prematurely claimed that major combat was over. Spain retreated its troops from a war that never should have started, that has nothing to do with spanish efforts to fight terrorism. Although the installment of anarchy in Iraq was an invitation to many terrorists and people who were driven into their hands. Get-back-world-respect 20:09, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
GBWR, I responded to discussion that was posted on this talk page, containing broad assertions involved with Bush, Texans, and the U.S. in general. This is not article space. If you feel it is inappropriate, don't respond to it here. -- Cecropia | Talk 20:21, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
I did not intend to single you out, you were only, as usual, the one I could not resist to comment on. Kevin was the one who started extensively writing off-topic. No worries, just try to move it elsewhere next time. Get-back-world-respect 21:58, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
I accept blame and apologize for writting off-topic. I will discipline myself better in this respect. But first, I would like to briefly clear something up: My assertions were not broad. I was speaking of anti-us sentiment, the specific texan views that Txwikinger spoke of, and anti-texas sentiment. I made no assertions about Bush whatsoever. The main topic I expressed was, however, largely irrespective of any of these assertions: it was a philosophical comment on "truth" and "ease". Again, sorry for going off-topic. I was expressing a philosophical sentiment that I feel strongly about. Kevin Baas 23:09, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Declining popularity

I found a broken link in the popularity section. Here it is, in case somebody can find an equivalent link to replace it:

A graphical summary of the trend of Bush's poll numbers until January 2004 can be seen at [2].

Photos

I find it a bit strange that this article has photos of Bush with Chirac and Schroeder and none with Blair although he met the latter by far more often. Altogether I think that there are too many pictures. Get-back-world-respect 14:58, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Obviously to show that things weren't always brickbats between them. But why too many pictures? If there's anything wrong with Wikipedia, it's that there aren't enough pictures. Combined with its functional layout, I've seen Stalinist sites with more visual interest. By all means get some more Kerry pictures in there! I'd go for some with him with Jane Fonda dressed as Barbarella, even if they're doctored! ;-) -- Cecropia | Talk 20:55, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

This should tell you something about this bunch and the trust in it. Even their weather reports are being double-checked -- and found to be lies. 142.177.125.225 19:07, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Election 2000

Shouldn't it be noted in the paragraph mentioning Jeb Bush being the Govenor of Florida that Jeb Bush categorically excused himself from any business regarding the presidential election count in order not to even create the appearance of impropriety ? Txwikinger 19:45, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Profession

I have found an inconsistency between Clinton's and Bush's profession given in the table. Clinton's says Attorney and Governor. Shouldn't Bush's say than also Businessman and Governor, instead of just Businessman ? Txwikinger 19:45, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Bush was a businessman much longer than Clinton was an attorney; hasn't Clinton pretty much been in government since the '70s? Meelar 19:48, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Governor is not a profession, it is a job. If we list it, it should be as 'politician', otherwise we should list 'director' or whatever post he held while a businessman. Mark Richards 23:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Family pic

I do not agree that the "family pic" is not relevant. The family pic shows that Bush is part of a political dynasty, and that is very important to his personal life. WhisperToMe 23:28, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Again, there is no need to have this photo on every Bush page. You can have it on the family page, but it is less relevant than the rest of the photos on the GW page, such as the national gaurd photo.

ChrisDJackson 16:46, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • It isn't on "every page" - It is only on the family page, the Jeb Bush page, and the H.W. Page. The family pic really needs to be here because this is a major political dynasty we are talking about. Bush's relationship, being an actual sibling, is buch stronger than that of Laura Bush, who is only the spouse of George W. Bush. WhisperToMe 05:47, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

International law

Kevin Baas: (The Supreme U.S. legal document, the U.S. Constitution, states that "International law is the supreme law of the land." Thus, this would violate the founding principles of the American government and therefore constitute treason, as well as being a high crime which serves as substantive ground for impeachment.)

The Constitution says nothing about "international law"; it says that (ratified) treaties have the same status as federal laws: between the Constitution and state constitutions.[Article VI.] And breaking federal law in not necessarily treason[Article III.3], or any other "high crime".
--wwoods 22:45, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


definition of "treason":
  1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
  2. 2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.
Look it up.


Article VI of the US Constitution states that: "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 Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
International Law: "LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict) comes from both customary international law and treaties. Customary international law, based on practice that nations have come to accept as legally required, establishes the traditional rules that govern the conduct of military operations in armed conflict. Article VI of the US Constitution states that treaty obligations of the United States are the "supreme law of the land," and the US Supreme Court has held that international law, to include custom, are part of US law. This means that treaties and agreements the United States enters into enjoy equal status as laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. Therefore, all persons subject to US law must observe the United States' LOAC obligations. In particular, military personnel must consider LOAC to plan and execute operations and must obey LOAC in combat. Those who violate LOAC may be held criminally liable for war crimes and court-martialed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)." from [3] There are thousands of documents to cite in defense of my claim. Kevin Baas 23:00, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The relevant definition of treason is in Article III.3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
This means that treaties and agreements the United States enters into enjoy equal status as laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. Which is just what I said: "that (ratified) treaties have the same status as federal laws: between the Constitution and state constitutions." But while any violation of federal law is a crime, it is not necessarily a "high crime", much less treason.
--wwoods 23:29, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Treason is the only crime which is specifically defined in the Constitution:

Article III, Section 3:
Clause 1:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

I don't see that that is what Bush has done. RickK 23:34, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

To put a finer point on it. Ratified treaties are supreme law in the sense that the states may not contravene them, any more than they can contavene federal law. That is the beginning and end of the issue, no matter how people would like it to be different.
As a matter of common sense, people should realize that if treaties were supreme over U.S. domestic law, it would destroy the balance of power in the Federal Government, since a single Congress, with the assent of a single President, could nullify a Constitutional provision by agreeing to a treaty.
And as an important aside, if you've studied treaty law, most treaties have escape clauses, and treaties are nullified otherwise for various reasons. -- Cecropia | Talk 00:08, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Firstly, the part "and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" includes the federal government as well.
  • Regarding treason, I never said that it was treason by law, nor do i object that it is not. However, by definition, it is treason.
  • Regarding "common sense": Yes, a single congress, with the assent of a single president, can also pass laws! That would be scary!
  • Regarding the second topic of the paragraph on common sense, nullifying constitutional priveleges, the part "in Pursuance thereof" nullifies any law or treaty that would nullify a constitutional provision.
  • Yes, laws do go back and forth. That's the nature of every law, and therefore cannot be used as a counterargument against any particular law.
  • The judical system, and of legal documents, i.e. the historical precedent, has dealt with the problem of federal power and international treaties quite a number of times. It is acknowledged, but it does not nullify the provision in the constitution stating that international law is the supreme law of the land. The American government is based on rule of law. Nobody is above that law, not even the president. Kevin Baas 00:55, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well then, it seems we are all in violent agreement that the Constitution supersedes any conflicting treaties, and that Bush has not committed an act which would be a substantive ground for a charge of treason.
--wwoods 01:44, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we are in violent agreement on those two points. ;-) Apparently my original statement was miconstrued. Given that your argument is therefore not in conflict with what I have said, it does not in any way discredit it. Kevin Baas 16:48, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I have no love for GWB, but Kevin Baas is delusional in his understanding of the constitution. older≠wiser 01:56, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Wiser, that is a personal attack (a.k.a. ad hominem attack), and being such, is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Please strikethrough or delete your comment and refrain from such behavior in the future. Kevin Baas 16:48, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I stand by what I wrote. Your understanding of the constitution is mistaken. I'm sorry if you find the term "delusional" too strong, but I think it is apt. This is not a personal attack, but a comment on what you wrote about the constitution. older≠wiser 17:04, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A comment cannot be delusional, for it is not sentient. It is not a question of strenght, it is a question of direction. Your comment that used the word was a personal attack, as worded. Please acknowledge this, and apologize for your wording, not my finding.
So you mean to rephrase yourself to say that what I have said regarding the constitution is mistaken? Yet you do not say how or why, or support your comment in any way. This makes it an arbitary and unsupported claim. That is easy enough to do, but just as meaningless as it is easy. For example, I could say that grass is orange, and it would be just as powerful an argument as that which you have made. Kevin Baas 17:21, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Against my better judgment, I'm going to reply and hopefully I will be able to leave this alone to edit less controversial topics less likely to attract thin-skinned firebrands. Others had already stated the various ways in which you are mistaken. I saw no reason to repeat them. older≠wiser 17:29, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I have already responded to them. If you have nothing to contribute to this discussion but an opinion which you are either not willing or not able to support with your own reasoning and evidence, than it is misleading to post it, as posting it implies that either it itself is not an opinion, or that you have logical reasons for making the comment, which differ from those already put forth. Kevin Baas 17:42, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You've noticed. I've long since more or less given up on this article, but I can't let obvious errors of law parade as an encyclopedia entry. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:04, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Good for you. As Thomas Jefferson has said on multiple occasions "Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." However, you have not demonstrated that there is any legal error in what I have said. Kevin Baas

Let me reiterate: U.S. Constitutiion, article VI, states: "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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 Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution ; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

This article states that both the constitution and international treaties are the supreme law of the land. No further distinction of authoritative predominance is made in any legal document, thus, the constitution and international treaties are de facto equal in legal status.

Notice, then, the last clause, that executive and judicial officers (including the president) are bound to support the constitution, including the above clause.

Also note, as I have cited much earlier in LOAC, that international law explicitly applies to all people in the federal military. This includes the commander-in-chief.

Ofcourse, it is possible to ammend the constitution, or to break a treaty. This could make an otherwise illegal act legal. However, the constitution was not ammended, and the U.S. is still a self-proclaimed (and accepted) member of the United Nations. Kevin Baas 20:53, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is my understanding, by reason of neccesity, that if a law is introduced which contradicts existing law of equal or greater status, the contradicting provisions in the new law are void/null, unless it explicitly ammends the existing law which it contradicts, declaring the conflicting sections of the previously existing law void/null. Kevin Baas 20:53, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

While the text of Article VI may seemingly permit a reading that treaties and the Constitution are equal, it's not the case. The way that sentence is phrased is because the Framers wanted treaties made by the U.S. before this Constitution was ratified to remain in force, therefore it doesn't explicitly place all treaties under the Constitution. To include treaties along with "laws made in pursuance" of the Constitution (i.e., federal law) would therefore invalidate all previously made treaties, including the one that ended the Revolutionary War.

One point to make first before I continue: under international law, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says in terms of getting the U.S. out of treaty or customary obligations—that domestic laws prevent the fulfillment of an obligation is no excuse.

Domestically under U.S. law however, the Constitution is supreme above all, including treaties. Regardless of whether the punctuation of Article VI permits otherwise, it has always been viewed as Supreme, and to not consider it such would totally undermine the constitutional system of government and be legally contradictory. For example, under U.S. law, a treaty is repealed under domestic law (though remaining in effect under international law) if subsequent legislation passed by Congress contradicts it—last-in-time wins out in federal law. How could treaties be equal to the Constitution if legislation can repeal it, but Congress can't make a law in violation of the Constitution?

The distinction between self-executing and non self-executing treaties would likewise not make any sense. If treaties were supreme above the constitution there wouldn't be such a thing as non self-executing treaties under U.S. law because further legislation, such as to make appropriations for spending or to add a crime such as torture to federal law would be unnecessary—the treaty would be directly obligatory upon the federal government in the same manner as the Constitution. But that is not how it has ever been viewed, dating back to at least the early 1800s (in a Supreme Court case, of which I can't remember the name at the moment, by John Marshall, refusing to enforce a treaty against the U.S. government that the Court found to be non self-executing). Consider also the political question doctrine in this context.

Furthermore, if treaties were equal to the Constitution, that would mean that the federal government essentially had no limits on its powers—it would not be restricted to the enumerated powers of Articles I and II, nor would it be restricted by the Bill of Rights or the other Amendments guaranteeing individual liberties. It would basically mean that every time a treaty was passed, the Constitution was de facto amended. A treaty passed promising to buy slaves from Myanmar would undo the 13th amendment rather than being in violation of it. A treaty passed promising to arrest all critics of the British government would carve out a huge chunk of the First Amendment. We wouldn't have a constitutional system of government any longer—the Constitution would be just another set of laws that could be changed by later contradiction by any joint action of the President and Congress done under pretense of foreign relations. Considering how the Framers intended the U.S. Government to be above all else one of limited powers, this couldn't possibly be how Article VI was intended to be read, or should be read if we are to preserve a constitutional system.

The wording of Article VI itself makes this clear. Though the semi-colon seems to set the Constitution and subject laws equal to Treaties, the Treaties clause limits it to Treaties made "under the Authority of the United States." The United States government only has the authority that the Constitution gives it, therefore no effect is given to any treaties that are contrary to the Constitution. --Postdlf 21:19 12 June 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Postdlf. I appreciate your explanation. A few remarks, though:

I read the first clause of Article VI:" All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. " to prevent, quite explicitly, any treaties made before the adoption of the consitution from becoming invalid. Therefore, what you said "To include treaties along with "laws made in pursuance" of the Constitution (i.e., federal law) would therefore invalidate all previously made treaties, including the one that ended the Revolutionary War. " is not true, as (1) they are already garaunteed valid by the first clause, and (2) the second clause is not exclusionary.

Anything you said afterward that was contingent on that is therefore not supported.

Regarding court decisions: that is not the question. The question is "What was intended by the authors of the Constitution?"

An executive, judicicial, legislative officer, could not legally enter into such contradictory treaties, as they are bond by the Constitution (Article VI). Thus, one cannot ammend the constitution by international treaties - the treaties would be invalid. But you said this in your last paragraph. I am in full agreement with your last paragraph. However, the paragraphs before that, on the same subject, I would put after the last paragraph. Perhaps it is merely a question of order of reasoning.

In conclusion, we seem to be in agreement, though by different paths.

In any case, you've seen how I reworded what I put in the article? It is now quite literal. Are you in agreement with it? Kevin Baas 22:06, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let me further add, to consolidate and summarize, that with said corrections, valid treaties may have equal status as the constitution, though they may not contradict the constitution or currently existing treaties, as all politicians and judges are bond by the constitution (third clause), and therefore also by currently existing treaties (second clause via third clause) - if a treaty does so, it is ipso facto not valid. No contradiction arises here, and the government can still function just fine. There is no problem to be resolved. Kevin Baas 23:38, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You read Article VI, clause 1 incorrectly. It deals purely with financial, contractual obligations incurred by the Articles of Confederation-era U.S. It has nothing to do with treaties—I don't know how you "explicitly" found that it does, unless you read "engagements" as a euphemism for "treaties" (which still isn't "explicit), but the phrase "debts and engagements" is a purely financial term still in use today (see, for example, section 502 or 741 of the U.S. banking regulations at Title 12).
Besides, as you said, clause 2 is not exclusionary, it actually goes to great pains to be inclusionary of treaties "made" as well as those which "shall be made," a distinction which is unnecessary if another clause already guarantees that treaties already made by the time of ratification will be given effect.
Court decisions are certainly part of the question—the text of the Constitution is only the starting point. As for what the Framers intended, that can be a part of the question too, though how important is certainly a matter of debate. It's always questionable how much you can really determine legal intent, not to mention of the dead, and being dead anyway it's also questionable how much their will should count if the text can support other pressing needs through a certain reading. Anyway, in this case we have all of U.S. history reading Article VI a certain way, and every aspect of how U.S. law handles treaties relying upon that usage, so absent a pretty damn good reason, I don't see why anyone would want to read it differently. But if it makes you happy, it's even a way that totally comports with the Framers' interests in limited government through separation of powers, enumerated powers, and constitutional limits.
Lastly, I didn't understand your last paragraph. The comment that "valid treaties may have equal status as the constitution" really doesn't make any sense, considering that the validity of treaties is itself being judged by the Constitution—how is that equal status? The only sense in which they may have equal effect is against state law, in that both are equally preemptive of it, but that's really the only sense. --Postdlf 10:29 13 June 2004 (UTC)
No. Again, you made a logical error. The validity of treaties is contingent on being made under the authority of the united states, yes, and there are limits on that authority, yes. However, the validity of valid treaties is not contingent on this; the effect is not recursive. That is why I said "valid treaties" enjoy equal status, rather than "treaties" enjoy equal status. Certainly, if I made a treaty with some guy in Russia that America and Russia was going to blow up Germany, nobody in America would be legally bound to do so, as this treaty was not made under the authority of the united states, and therefore is not valid. Ofcourse, this invalid treaty does not enjoy equal legal status as the Constitution, and "before" it was valid or invalid, it did not have any legal status whatsoever to be compared with that of the Constitution. The question of "making sense" is whether there is logical consistency; whether the treaty is at any point both valid and invalid, or, as a valid treaty, at any point simlutaneuously enjoys equal status as the constitution and lesser status. This is not the case. There is logical consistency; i.e. it "makes sense".
Regarding the courts, you have not demonstrated how the courts have in any way judged contrary to what I have elucidated. The status of a treaty as "self-executing" or "non self-executing" is dependant solely on the wording of the treaty itself, and has nothing to do with any other article, including Article VI of the Constitution. Kevin Baas 19:13, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
And FWIW, the word "and" is not punctuation. Kevin Baas 19:28, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Text removal

I removed the following from the article:

Bush's foreign policy is influenced by the goal to promote American global leadership as promoted by the right-wing think tank Project for the New American Century many of whose members have prominent positions in the Bush administration.

because I felt that it was POV. At the least, we should include this along with some comment about a committment to building democracy, or some other Wilsonian thing he's got going. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:18, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Given the high number of members of the PNAC in Bush's administration the text is factual. If you want something else to accompany it go ahead, but that is no justification for a removal. Get-back-world-respect 20:12, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I second Get-back-world-respect's statement. My judgement of editing policy is consistent with statements I have made before, regarding removing accurate statements from an article. There are three statements made here: 1. many members of PNAC have prominent positions in the Bush administration. True. 2. Bush's foreign policy is influenced by the goal to promote American global leadership. True. Bush has stated this publicly. 3. this "American global leadership" is consistent with the version of "American global leadership" promoted by PNAC. True. As evidenced by PNAC's support of the Bush administration. Kevin Baas 20:29, 2004 Jun 14 (UTC)
I added some text in an attempt to balance it. It's bad, it's kludgy writing, but I felt that there needed to be something there besides saying that Bush's foreign policy was all about American dominance--that's merely a large component of it. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:31, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If his desire was to promote democracy, why does he not start with his allies rather than his enemies? No democracy in Kuwait nor Saudi Arabia, several undemocratic regimes in the coalition of the willing, and your term "Wilsonianism" is so unimportant that it does not even have an article. Furthermore, democracy means rule of the people, not rule of a foreign leader who decides that the people should decide to rule as he wants. Get-back-world-respect 20:47, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The reason it doesn't have an article is because I phrased it badly--as I said, kludgy. I'm not trying to be partisan here, please don't interpret me as such. It's just that the above statement baldly asserts that Bush's goal is to assure American dominance--which I won't contest, but it's only part of the story. And as for Saudi Arabia, I can't comment on the strategic decisions made by the Bush administration.[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]


Vandalism

A few changes had to be reverted just now; a vandal from 162.83.199.229 made changes such as "and worst President", "admitted [...] sleeping with men", "having an abortion", and so forth. Meelar's most recent revert is correct; I accidentally left an extra "I" when fixing one of the vandalized quotes. - Korpios 19:12, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Typo

September is misspelt in the article.

Pro- and anti-links

I agree that there are too many links to pro- and anti-sites and questionable "references". However, just because the topic is controversial we should not keep all external links out. What is the view of others? Get-back-world-respect 13:38, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

GBWR, I'm removing the pro- and anti-links for now because this is in conformity with the same done at the Kerry article. Either they must both go or both stay. If you disagree, please discuss with User:Kingturtle, who is the proponent of the changes. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:30, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I am ok with that, the anonymous put them back. Get-back-world-respect 14:38, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Table

I have made a template at {{President}}, but i can't use it here due to pipelinks for party and VP... anyone know a way around this?

I don't see a template there Ilyanep 13:56, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)