See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On May 21st, 2009 at 8:44 am, flmom said:

   That America is such a major violator of international law that it belongs in an “axis of disobedience” with nations such as North Korea and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (“Transnational Legal Process After September 11th,” Berkeley Journal of International Law, Vol. 22, p. 337, 2004).

   With this opinion, the only State Department he should be working for is in Iran.

2. #2
   On May 21st, 2009 at 8:51 am, xler8bmw said:

   Constitution Trumps Treaties!

   Control and use of land by the federal government is strictly limited by the Constitution of the United States. No treaty can supersede or alter the Constitution. This fact is thoroughly discussed in the thesis, Limited Federal Government. “Constitution Trumps Treaties” deals with the documentation on the subject of limitation of treaty power.

   One will immediately notice that the subject of treaty power versus the Constitution has many points. I will let the Justices of the Supreme Court discuss those in the following paragraphs. Of interest is the indefinite line between treaty power and legislative power. This is, indeed, interesting. Another point of contention is whether or not treaties are self executing. It appears that Congress can negate a treaty. It certainly is the wish of this writer that they would test it out on the UN Charter, which a treaty, and a very harmful one.

   Clarification of a clause in the Constitution of the United States is in order here. Article VI, clause 2 declares 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.” It is the last clause that is misunderstood, even by attorneys. “… Constitution or Laws of any State …” refers to the Constitutions of the several states, NOT the Constitution of the United States. The Founding Fathers were much too well informed to allow the state Constitutions to alter the United States Constitution. That would have been self defeating. The truth of the matter is that neither treaties nor state laws can supersede or alter the Constitution of the United States. Our national document is etched in stone. It is unfortunate that most Congress Persons do not read stone.

3. #3
   On May 21st, 2009 at 8:53 am, irving said:

   Very interesting opinions. Anyone who thinks there really is such a thing as “international law” – and that the U.N. has anything to do with it! – doesn’t know anything about international law. This guy should be rejected on grounds of incompetence and gross stupidity.

4. #4
   On May 21st, 2009 at 8:53 am, granite said:

   God forgive me; but, dangerous clowns like this need to meet a 2×4 up close and personal.

5. #5
   On May 21st, 2009 at 8:53 am, pressto said:

   This is no surprise because President Obama has stated he would rather have the UN laws and rules then the US Constitution.

6. #6
   On May 21st, 2009 at 8:54 am, lgm said:

   You can’t quote international law only when it suits you. If we want China and Iran to follow it, we have to follow it too. That means, yes, getting the UN to explicitly endorse the invasion of Iraq. It also means following the Geneva conventions so that senior US officials are not given the Pinochet treatment — indicted in Europe for crimes that they should have been indicted for in their home countries.

   And you are aware that Obama won the election promising to do stuff like this. Do you want the wingnut minority to thwart the will of the majority?

7. #7
   On May 21st, 2009 at 8:59 am, granite said:

   Do you want the wingnut minority to thwart the will of the majority?

   Could not have been better stated.

   That is what statist, “activist” courts have been doing to our nation/society/culture for the past ?70-75? years.

8. #8
   On May 21st, 2009 at 9:02 am, xler8bmw said:

   On May 21st, 2009 at 8:54 am, lgm said:

   We didn’t sign on to the ICC treaty!

9. #9
   On May 21st, 2009 at 9:04 am, bansharia said:

   OT:
   has Ed left hotair? don’t see him post anymore.

10. #10
    On May 21st, 2009 at 9:07 am, ThatSamIAm said:

    More anti-American hatred. More blame American first. How stupid do people have to be if they can’t see how blatantly anti-American Obama is?

    People like Koh are traitors to their country and should be kicked out of this country. They should never be given power to take our sovereignty and had it to someone else.

11. #11
    On May 21st, 2009 at 9:09 am, Ragspierre said:

    Koh is a real fruit-cake, and I followed the links Michelle provided to let my Senators know just how dangerous I think this moke would be.

    Please, all of you, do the same.

12. #12
    On May 21st, 2009 at 9:14 am, Ragspierre said:

    And you are aware that Obama won the election promising to do stuff like this. Do you want the wingnut minority to thwart the will of the majority?
    

    Among the several lies or distortions in lgm’s thrown bomb, this was the King-Daddy WHOPPER.

    BIG BRO may have been promising that on the sub-rosa level of the moonbat LEFTIST organs you read, lgm. (Increasingly among them, the NYT).

    He damn sure was not promising that in any MSM outlets that the normal, duped American reads.

13. #13
    On May 21st, 2009 at 9:14 am, Silkyinfamous said:

    the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child

    That does sound terrifying!

14. #14
    On May 21st, 2009 at 9:15 am, Ragspierre said:

    It also means following the Geneva conventions so that senior US officials are not given the Pinochet treatment

    Which convention do you assert applies?

    Hmmmm….?

15. #15
    On May 21st, 2009 at 9:15 am, englishqueen01 said:

    Do you want the wingnut minority to thwart the will of the majority?

    Funny. When the “will of the majority” offends liberal beliefs – be it on gay marriage, abortion, or taxes – the minority must be protected, respected, and given equal footing.

    But when the shoe is on the other foot, the minority no longer matters.

    At least to liberals.

    Koh’s beliefs directly violate our national sovereignty and our Constitution. Now I know liberals despise both, but my guess is even people who voted for Obama – who increasingly seem disappointed by what he’s doing – don’t want the Constitution taken away for EU-style socialistic government.

    If you think it will create a utopia, you’re very, very wrong. And the day will come when the protections provided even to liberals in the Constitution would be sorely missed if we allowed “international law” to govern us.

16. #16
    On May 21st, 2009 at 9:17 am, stillontheroad said:

    LGM– Keep mouthing those Platitudes “Hope” and of course “Yes We Can”

17. #17
    On May 21st, 2009 at 9:17 am, Ragspierre said:

    That means, yes, getting the UN to explicitly endorse the invasion of Iraq.

    So, our national security decisions and actions are supposed to be subservient to a body infamous for its corruption and active loathing of the US?

    Such stupidity transcends even the LEFT.

    No, wait…

    Typifies the LEFT.

18. #18
    On May 21st, 2009 at 9:18 am, englishqueen01 said:

    So, our national security decisions and actions are supposed to be subservient to a body infamous for its corruption and active loathing of the US?

    Yes. No doubt the UN would chastise the FBI for thwarting the terror attack planned, as they did recently.

    See, the UN thinks it’s our fault jihadists exist, ergo we must allow them to blow up our civilians.

19. #19
    On May 21st, 2009 at 9:21 am, Ragspierre said:

    The reality is that we should be OUT of the UN.

    It was a gonner decades ago.

    We should start a new organization of democratic states which share values with us.

20. #20
    On May 21st, 2009 at 9:21 am, granite said:

    On May 21st, 2009 at 9:17 am, Ragspierre said:

    Such stupidity transcends even the LEFT.

    No, wait…

    Typifies the LEFT.

    Good correction.
    Right you are!

21. #21
    On May 21st, 2009 at 9:27 am, BuckeyeSam said:

    On May 21st, 2009 at 9:04 am, bansharia said:
    OT:
    has Ed left hotair? don’t see him post anymore.

    OT: On a well-deserved vacation this week, maybe longer. Just keep checking.

22. #22
    On May 21st, 2009 at 9:35 am, John Deaux said:

    On May 21st, 2009 at 9:15 am, englishqueen01 said:

    But they know what’s better for us than we do.

23. #23
    On May 21st, 2009 at 9:37 am, fluffy said:

    decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court should “tip more decisively toward a transnationalist jurisprudence”

    Great idea. Should we allow Saudi Arabia to vote on publish Moham cartoons? Right after we let them decide what to do to the producers of ‘Brokeback Mountain’

    Enjoy your freedom!

24. #24
    On May 21st, 2009 at 9:39 am, englishqueen01 said:

    Should we allow Saudi Arabia to vote on publish Moham cartoons? Right after we let them decide what to do to the producers of ‘Brokeback Mountain’

    Enjoy your freedom!

    Yeah. What about all those countries that wouldn’t allow abortion or gay marriage? I suppose if we let them change those laws, that would be okay. International unity and all that.

25. #25
    On May 21st, 2009 at 9:43 am, dominigan said:

    On May 21st, 2009 at 8:54 am, lgm said:

    You can’t quote international law only when it suits you. If we want China and Iran to follow it, we have to follow it too. That means, yes, getting the UN to explicitly endorse the invasion of Iraq. It also means following the Geneva conventions so that senior US officials are not given the Pinochet treatment — indicted in Europe for crimes that they should have been indicted for in their home countries.

    The Constitution is the Law of our Land and supersedes all other law in America… even International. It doesn’t matter what you, or others want.

    President Obama has sworn an Oath of Office to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic…

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    If Koh comes into office, and attempts to override the Constitution with International Law, and Obama does nothing to prevent it… Obama should be immediately impeached and charged with high crimes.

26. #26
    On May 21st, 2009 at 9:44 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    If I ran for president the first plank of my platform would be to PULL OUT OF THE UN. The rest is just as easy – pretty much do the opposite of what liberals want for us.

27. #27
    On May 21st, 2009 at 9:45 am, englishqueen01 said:

    If I ran for president the first plank of my platform would be to PULL OUT OF THE UN. The rest is just as easy – pretty much do the opposite of what liberals want for us.

    Yeah, that’s my plan, too.

    How about an EnglishQueen/Danceswithdachshunds ticket in 2020?

28. #28
    On May 21st, 2009 at 9:48 am, Ragspierre said:

    Let’s just call this Koh guy and his potential boss for what they are…

    Anti-American.

    If you advocate that we loose what and who we are that identifies us as the unique thing we have been since our founding, you are against that. Pure and simple.

    We were designed, in the language of sentential logic, to be “NOT EUROPE”. Our Founders were almost self-consciously devoted to making us NOT EUROPE.

    You do not “change” or “revise” something you claim to love. You do that to something you find fundamentally deficient.

    Which, it is obvious, is the case with BIG BRO (meaning BIG BROTHER, THE AMERICAN LEFT). They hate what America IS, and was designed to be. They seek to fundamentally remake it to what it NEVER could be if they approached the American people directly, and truthfully revealed their end-game.

29. #29
    On May 21st, 2009 at 10:00 am, flmom said:

    Ragspierre said:

    Well said. When Obama said in his inaugural address that we must ‘remake America’, I got chills up my spine, and not in a good way.

30. #30
    On May 21st, 2009 at 10:00 am, frontierguy said:

    We should start a new organization of democratic states which share values with us.

    I have argued that before, the liberal I was talking to went on and on about US arrogance and what a selfish person I am…. Liberals will not be satisfied until they destroy wherever they are, ala California.

    On a side note: I used to come into these threads and read the comments having to skip one attorney with a French name’s never ending sabotage of comments about what he likes to drink, his favorite recipes or where he likes to hang out, apparently trying to waste the time of people who want to read news stories and hear other’s opinions. I’m glad there is now a different attorney with a French name who stays on topic and has meaningful opinions to boot. Now that is change I can go for.

31. #31
    On May 21st, 2009 at 10:09 am, 30 pcs of silver said:

    They seek to fundamentally remake it to what it NEVER could be if they approached the American people directly, and truthfully revealed their end-game.

    Amen. This is usually where the opposition (GOP) would come in and shed light on the cockroaches and their dirty deeds. However, the GOP tucks tail and joins the festivities.

32. #32
    On May 21st, 2009 at 10:18 am, spaceycakes said:

    Who is Harold Koh?
    Harold Koh is the former Dean of Yale Law School.

    That tells me nothing. I want to know if he regularly goes to lunch with Bill Ayres.

33. #33
    On May 21st, 2009 at 10:20 am, Ragspierre said:

    frontierguy;

    Thanks. I’m honored.

    I chose Ragspierre for my nom d keyboard because I am the antithesis of Robespierre (of evil collectivist ilk), and it befits my income. I could never afford robes.

34. #34
    On May 21st, 2009 at 10:22 am, Ragspierre said:

    This is usually where the opposition (GOP) would come in and shed light on the cockroaches and their dirty deeds. However, the GOP tucks tail and joins the festivities.

    Sadly true. But there IS a viable opposition to all this, and it IS the conservatives.

35. #35
    On May 21st, 2009 at 10:41 am, Dexter Alarius said:

    It also means following the Geneva conventions …

    I’m all for that. Summary Executions for all unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).

36. #36
    On May 21st, 2009 at 10:44 am, mchristian said:

    lgm said: blah blah blah blah Obama won!

37. #37
    On May 21st, 2009 at 10:48 am, granite said:

    On May 21st, 2009 at 10:44 am, mchristian said:

    Good one!
    Rim shot!!

38. #38
    On May 21st, 2009 at 11:03 am, J S Ragman said:

    On May 21st, 2009 at 10:41 am, Dexter Alarius said:
    It also means following the Geneva conventions …
    I’m all for that. Summary Executions for all unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).

    Bingo, or is that Bada-bingo!

39. #39
    On May 21st, 2009 at 11:07 am, hawkeye54 said:

    With this opinion, the only State Department he should be working for is in Iran.
    

    Sadly, from what I understand, the State Department is overrun with lefties, most, if not all, already share KOH’s views.

40. #40
    On May 21st, 2009 at 11:38 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    lgm said: blah blah blah blah Obama won!

    Indeed he did and we plan to be the Loyal Opposition every inch of the way and oppose him whenever he is wrong; as with you he usually is.

    Republicans “joined a consensus” to confirm Rude Ruth Ginsberg and the Left has attacked every Republican nomination for almost everything since.

    Bla Bla Bla Bork. There IS NO common ground and only fools and weaklings think there is. Is is called politics dear lgm, get over it.

    Ho Ho Ho Koh gotta go? Where? Who cares?

41. #41
    On May 21st, 2009 at 11:38 am, tre said:

    Do you want the wingnut minority to thwart the will of the majority?

    Like the “wingnut minority” who wants to thwart the “will of the majority” on Proposition 8 in CA? Or the “wingnut minority” who wants to thwart the “will of the majority” on gun control?

    Looney leftwing liberals only care about the “will of the majority” when it’s the same as theirs. Otherwise, the want to “protect” the minority.

42. #42
    On May 21st, 2009 at 11:44 am, Jeff said:

    and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States

    See, he’s in the clear…
    He’s just not very good with that Constitution thingy…

43. #43
    On May 21st, 2009 at 11:46 am, Jeff said:

    Do you want the wingnut minority to thwart the will of the majority?

    Or, the majority that is appalled by unrestrained immigration…

44. #44
    On May 21st, 2009 at 11:52 am, granite said:

    On May 21st, 2009 at 11:38 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    There IS NO common ground….

    Correct.

45. #45
    On May 21st, 2009 at 11:56 am, MarcoPolo said:

    On May 21st, 2009 at 8:54 am, lgm said:

    And you are aware that Obama won the election promising to do stuff like this. Do you want the wingnut minority to thwart the will of the majority?

    Obama won because he promised to end the Iraq war. He didn’t win because he promised to bomb Pakistan.

    Minority rights are the reason that the founders set us up as a republic instead of a democracy.

46. #46
    On May 21st, 2009 at 12:03 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    Now if only we could find some conservatives to carry the fight. Unfortunately, we’re stuck with Republicans.

47. #47
    On May 21st, 2009 at 12:04 pm, Ragspierre said:

    Mr. Obama’s appealing campaign images turned out to have been fleeting. He ran hard to the left on national security to win the nomination, only to discover the campaign commitments he made were shallow and at odds with America’s security interests.

    Mr. Obama ran hard to the center on economic issues to win the general election. He has since discovered his campaign commitments were obstacles to ramming through the most ideologically liberal economic agenda since the Great Society.

    Mr. Obama either had very little grasp of what governing would involve or, if he did, he used words meant to mislead the public. Neither option is particularly encouraging. America now has a president quite different from the person who advertised himself for the job last year. Over time, those things can catch up to a politician.
    Karl Rove, WSJ

    He LIED. The MSM was his EAGER megaphone.

    That’s how he won.

48. #48
    On May 21st, 2009 at 12:06 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    Potassium Hydroxide is also very caustic!

    englishqueen01 said: Yeah, that’s my plan, too. How about an

    EnglishQueen/Danceswithdachshunds ticket in 2020?

    Ummm.. or a Danceswithdachshunds/EnglishQueen ticket in 2020? Okay, how bout we flip for it?

49. #49
    On May 21st, 2009 at 12:12 pm, b-cat said:

    you can oppose somebody on policy grounds without taking the position that he is the devil incarnate…

    True. The devil has many henchmen.

50. #50
    On May 21st, 2009 at 12:13 pm, mchristian said:

    He (Koh) would also represent the U.S. at treaty negotiations and international legal conferences, and will be involved in drafting U.N. Security Council resolutions.

    That the U.S. should ratify the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child regardless of the implications for American sovereignty and federalism.

    Apparently we should surrender our sovereignty and throw ourselves on the tender mercies of the rapists, serial abusers and thieves at the UN. And, I’m betting the nations governed by the “religion of peace” are planning to get right on implementing that Rome statute deal.

51. #51
    On May 21st, 2009 at 12:20 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    It’s clear from Dean Koh’s record that he’s a post-sovereign transnationalist. A term he’s used himself.

    Anyone who doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism and
    U.S. sovereignty doesn’t belong anywhere near our government.

    A post-sovereign transnationalist is someone who wants this.
    Obama has always chosen to surround himself with such people.

    “We the People” Just Say “NO!“

52. #52
    On May 21st, 2009 at 2:21 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Opposing Koh is not .. a claim that he is not a very brilliant law professor…

    …he wants to invent new rights favored by Left.

    this is brilliance….?

53. #53
    On May 21st, 2009 at 5:55 pm, Ragspierre said:

    this is brilliance….?

    In Statist circles…it is called passing…

    I’ve known quite a few Statists who were endowed with excellent minds.

    They CHOOSE to be idiots.

    A very dark sin, IMNHO.

54. #54
    On May 24th, 2009 at 5:28 pm, NHMagenta said:

    So what are “conservatives” going to do aside from beat their virtual gums on michellemalkin.com, freerepublic, and assorted email lists and USENET newsgroups?

    Too many folks haven’t yet grasped the concept that there is really only one political party in the USA with two “brands”; until people start en masse excercising their write-in votes nothing will improve.

    My analysis:
    500 years ago certain highly moneyed interests in Europe saw the newly (re)discovered Western Hemisphere as a great investment opportunity.

    Spain, Portugal and France saw gold mines, furs and other natural resources while England saw a place to offload their surplus population in addition to a great source of prime wood for the Royal Navy.

    500 years later I see the Banksters of Europe and their shills here in the Western Hemisphere attempting to take back their investments.

    We certainly do live in interesting times!