Well, first off I went to the WH site and confirmed it was real.If anyone who knows how to wade through this stuff without developing an overpowering urge to slam your forehead into cinderblocks, please educate the rest of us--using very small words.
I'd need somebody who knows how to navigate that stuff explain it to me. It looks like the quoted language in his new EO does not exactly match what is in the '83 EO. And I don't see those subsections repro'd in the USC quote--which would mean somebody--not me--full plate and all--is going to need to analyze the original...
You can find the relevant sections here:
http://www.ipu.org/finance-e/PL79-291.pdf
This ain't the kind of stuff that's my niche--it makes my head hurt and I'm just as clueless as the next guy. if I had to guess, it looks like Reagan took away some immunities for the dang furriners and Obama's restoring them. But you really need someone who is credible with diplomatic law, and I hardly qualify.
UPDATE: Correspondent Harvey sends this link. I do not know anything about this website or the writer, but thought I'd pass it on so people who understand such things can let us know if it's an accurate interpretation.
6 comments:
Seems like diplomatic immunity is being extended.
I'm not sure I understand either - which protections are they being granted? For instance, illegal aliens already have BOR protections. Some even vote without anything ever happening.
Is Obomba granting the "right" to vote and buy guns?
I'm not sure about the implications, since cruel and unusual punishment via Taser electro-shock is routinely meted out to citizens by our masters, the Only Ones.
The part that struck me as pertinent is where Obama says" By virtue of the authority vested in me ...". I haven't vested him with any authority, and I find no section of the Constitution which vests him or anyone else with authority to unilaterally change the Constitution without going through the specified Amendment Process. This indicates to me that his EO(s) are extra-lawful, and thus, according to the Court, "of no force". Except, of course, that threat of force he withholds from us by violating the Second Amendment.
Andrew McCarthy (who prosecuted the blind sheik of the first WTC attack) explains it over at corner.nationalreview.com . Search the page for Interpol until you get to McCarthy's post.
In brief, Reagan's EO gave Interpol some of the privileges of diplomats, but kept them under the same constitutional limitations as US law enforcement. Obama's EO removes those limitations, turning them into extra special international only ones.
"But you really need someone who is credible with diplomatic law"
No, you don't. Would you feel morally bound to obey this law if it was written in Swahili? Then why do you feel bound to obey it when it is written in language and cross-references as twisted up as a plate of spaghetti? If a law is written as plainly as "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed", then it's on you to get a libertarian homeschooler to explain it to you if you are a moron. But this cross-reference mess that we can't freely browse on the web? Naah. Programming and law are very similar, and programmers don't put up with crap like "I'll only send you the changes I've made in the form of differences against some antique version [which you probably don't have]". The Icelandic legal culture had a tradition that the entire legal code had to be spoken in its entirety once a year. I doubt they had any 2,000 page healthcare laws. When you encounter this "law", don't slam your forehead into cinderblocks, just smile at your win; the more ridiculous their requirements are, the easier it is to call them on it.
Anon, who said anything about obeying any law?
Post a Comment