Russia rejects European Court of Human Rights order to recognise same-sex unions
-
You just proved my point. You don't like Trump because he expanded the GOP to be more inclusive and welcoming to the working class. I was around in the 80's so when the Reagan Democrats voted republican you cheered but after the election you were happy they stayed Democrats. You hate Trump because he brought in those Reagan Democrats and a great majority of them stayed in the GOP and you are pissed off.
-
@geobear40 said in Russia rejects European Court of Human Rights order to recognise same-sex unions:
You just proved my point. You don't like Trump because he expanded the GOP to be more inclusive and welcoming to the working class. I was around in the 80's so when the Reagan Democrats voted republican you cheered but after the election you were happy they stayed Democrats. You hate Trump because he brought in those Reagan Democrats and a great majority of them stayed in the GOP and you are pissed off.
I jeer Trump - not because of his views, but because of his tactics. He brought (brings) shame and discredit to our Party and to the Country, with his pedantic and self-aggrandizing outright lies, fear-mongering, and race-baiting. His policies (many of which I favor) will hopefully outlive his personality.
-
The conversation steered far off the original topic but I wanted to add some observation on how the international treaty works.
Many countries ratified treaty "with reservation(s)", that is the ratifying body, such as US Senate, doesn't agree to everything in the treaty and/or rejects particular protocol. So ratified State party to the treaty doesn't mean that they consent to the jurisdiction or agreed to be bound by the treaty in every respect. Some countries have constitutions that mandate domestic laws to preempt international laws.
Reservations to the treaty are rarely tested in court so the effect of the reservations is unclear, domestic courts may use reservations as a basis to reject the implementation of the treaty, while some court has held that the language of the treaty provides no basis for reservation of the treaty itself but allow each country to reject specific optional protocols.
Back in the U.S., it is not accurate to say that the US has agreed to every treaty it ratified (even without reservation). While the US constitution has granted a sole power to ratify the treaty to the Senate, Supreme Court has held since 1829 in Foster v. Neilson that even ratified treaty is treated as "laws of the land", non self-executing treaty is unenforceable without an implementing statute, that is enacted by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. In other words, the US is free to pick and choose to enforce some provisions of the treaty and ignore others if it so wishes, and have done in many instances. At this point I have to agree with @bi4smooth .
So if the US as the model form of governance can freely ignore its obligation, why not Russia?
-
@frigens
Thank you for your clarity. -
It's disappointing, but not surprising.
-
Not that I agree with the Russian failure to recognize (or legalize) same-sex unions, but they do have a point they are not members of the EU, and are not subject to their courts!
The European Court of Human Rights and the EU are two very different organisations, even when they have the word European in it. In the US many different American organisations have the word American in it without they are believed to be only one organisation.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login