Tsalagi Nation Sends First Congressional Delegate

[Purgatio]

To other States, yes. Not to internal communities lacking competency in the eyes of international law to conclude internationalised treaties. At most, this damages trust between the US government and tribal nations.

I’m sure breaking more treaties will make the US look great on the international stage.

These aren't treaties owed to other States, its an internal treaty with autonomous communities within the US itself, governed by internal law (the Constitution) as opposed to the international legal order. Breaking these treaties with the tribes has no bearing on internationalised treaties and contracts.

[Kowani]

I’m sure breaking more treaties will make the US look great on the international stage.

These aren't treaties owed to other States, its an internal treaty with autonomous communities within the US itself, governed by internal law (the Constitution) as opposed to the international legal order. Breaking these treaties with the tribes has no bearing on internationalised treaties and contracts.

Yes. Because violating one’s Constitution makes one look trustworthy.

[Neko-koku]

These aren't treaties owed to other States, its an internal treaty with autonomous communities within the US itself, governed by internal law (the Constitution) as opposed to the international legal order. Breaking these treaties with the tribes has no bearing on internationalised treaties and contracts.

Yes. Because violating one’s Constitution makes one look trustworthy.

+1

[North German Realm]

The Federal government has to abide by the treaties. If the federal law contradicts with the treaties, the treaties come first. The reservations have sovereignty because the Supreme Court has always been clear that they are sovereign protectorates of the United States, not territories or states thereof.

The US Federal government doesn't need to abide by the treaties. There is a precedent for not honoring it anyways. Only if a group has the military might or leverage to resist, should any agreements be honored with them.

The natural result of Exceptionalism. "Fuck treaties we sign, they're just pieces of paper.". This mentality literally caused one of the worst wars in human history one generation away from living memory.

[Purgatio]

These aren't treaties owed to other States, its an internal treaty with autonomous communities within the US itself, governed by internal law (the Constitution) as opposed to the international legal order. Breaking these treaties with the tribes has no bearing on internationalised treaties and contracts.

Yes. Because violating one’s Constitution makes one look trustworthy.

To your own citizens? Maybe not. To other States? It makes no difference to them, because international treaties are governed by international law, not national law. Breaking these treaties would be a violation of the internal rules of the US legal order, but it would not violate international law, which is all States care about when it comes to inter-State relations. The fact is, the US would not be breaking any international obligation if it flouted these treaties.

[Purgatio]

The US Federal government doesn't need to abide by the treaties. There is a precedent for not honoring it anyways. Only if a group has the military might or leverage to resist, should any agreements be honored with them.

The natural result of Exceptionalism. "Fuck treaties we sign, they're just pieces of paper.". This mentality literally caused one of the worst wars in human history one generation away from living memory.

He's just describing international politics as it actually is in reality.

"The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must." - the Hoplites

[Kowani]

Yes. Because violating one’s Constitution makes one look trustworthy.

To your own citizens? Maybe not. To other States? It makes no difference to them, because international treaties are governed by international law, not national law. Breaking these treaties would be a violation of the internal rules of the US legal order, but it would not violate international law, which is all States care about when it comes to inter-State relations. The fact is, the US would not be breaking any international obligation if it flouted these treaties.

No. It very much does. If one does not follow their own Constitution, how can they be expected to follow through with their international treaties? (Not to mention the terrible precedent this sets up.)

[Purgatio]

To your own citizens? Maybe not. To other States? It makes no difference to them, because international treaties are governed by international law, not national law. Breaking these treaties would be a violation of the internal rules of the US legal order, but it would not violate international law, which is all States care about when it comes to inter-State relations. The fact is, the US would not be breaking any international obligation if it flouted these treaties.

No. It very much does. If one does not follow their own Constitution, how can they be expected to follow through with their international treaties? (Not to mention the terrible precedent this sets up.)

National governments don't care whether other national governments abide by their own internal, national constitutional restrictions. That's a purely domestic and internal affair that is separate from international relations, which are governed by international law. As long as you're not breaking international law, other countries don't care because they know if they ever broke their own internal laws other countries wouldn't care either.

[Neko-koku]

The natural result of Exceptionalism. "Fuck treaties we sign, they're just pieces of paper.". This mentality literally caused one of the worst wars in human history one generation away from living memory.

He's just describing international politics as it actually is in reality.

"The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must." - the Hoplites

This also applies to domestic politics. The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. There is no sin in life worse than weakness.

Hence..PRC and NK are caused by people being extremely servile and are necessary consequences of such servility.

[Neko-koku]

The US Federal government doesn't need to abide by the treaties. There is a precedent for not honoring it anyways. Only if a group has the military might or leverage to resist, should any agreements be honored with them.

The natural result of Exceptionalism. "Fuck treaties we sign, they're just pieces of paper.". This mentality literally caused one of the worst wars in human history one generation away from living memory.

The natural result of despotism. A state that treats its own people like shit is not reliable in foreign affairs either.

[Kowani]

No. It very much does. If one does not follow their own Constitution, how can they be expected to follow through with their international treaties? (Not to mention the terrible precedent this sets up.)

National governments don't care whether other national governments abide by their own internal, national constitutional restrictions.

And now we’re on to blatant ignorance.

That's a purely domestic and internal affair that is separate from international relations, which are governed by international law. As long as you're not breaking international law, other countries don't care because they know if they ever broke their own internal laws other countries wouldn't care either.

You draw an arbitrary law between international and domestic law that doesn’t exist.

[Thermodolia]

I see you think token representation is a good thing. Interesting that

I see people being able to make their needs known to their government as better than then not. I guess that's a controversial position? Whatever.

Not having representation and token representation aren’t the only options. There’s also full representation.

Yet your acting like token representation is it, that’s there’s no other options besides no representation

[Purgatio]

He's just describing international politics as it actually is in reality.

"The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must." - the Hoplites

This also applies to domestic politics. The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. There is no sin in life worse than weakness.

Hence..PRC and NK are caused by people being extremely servile and are necessary consequences of such servility.

This isn't the thread for a more generic discussion about basic Law and Order versus lawless anarchy like you support. If you wanna set up a thread on that topic I'd be happy to debate you there but here let's stick to the question of whether the US should honour the treaties in question or not.

[Neko-koku]

This also applies to domestic politics. The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. There is no sin in life worse than weakness.

Hence..PRC and NK are caused by people being extremely servile and are necessary consequences of such servility.

This isn't the thread for a more generic discussion about basic Law and Order versus lawless anarchy like you support. If you wanna set up a thread on that topic I'd be happy to debate you there but here let's stick to the question of whether the US should honour the treaties in question or not.

Not honoring treaties IS lawlessness, so are PRC and NK tyrannies. Non-bureaucrats being servile while bureaucrats being able to have dictatorial powers is not lawful, not even by the standards of the laws authorized by despots themselves. For example PRC officials regularly violate PRC laws, including Xi lol.

[Purgatio]

National governments don't care whether other national governments abide by their own internal, national constitutional restrictions.

And now we’re on to blatant ignorance.

That's a purely domestic and internal affair that is separate from international relations, which are governed by international law. As long as you're not breaking international law, other countries don't care because they know if they ever broke their own internal laws other countries wouldn't care either.

You draw an arbitrary law between international and domestic law that doesn’t exist.

It actually isn't 'ignorance' and no the line isn't arbitrary, its the whole foundation of public international law called 'dualism'.

Forgive me but I just need to check - have you studied public international law, mooted on international law or interned under a diplomat before? Because if you're gonna call me ignorant about how international law works I wanna verify you're actually speaking from a position of genuinely-superior knowledge on this subject.

[Purgatio]

This isn't the thread for a more generic discussion about basic Law and Order versus lawless anarchy like you support. If you wanna set up a thread on that topic I'd be happy to debate you there but here let's stick to the question of whether the US should honour the treaties in question or not.

Not honoring treaties IS lawlessness, so are PRC and NK tyrannies. Non-bureaucrats being servile while bureaucrats being able to have dictatorial powers is not lawful, not even by the standards of the laws authorized by despots themselves. For example PRC officials regularly violate PRC laws, including Xi lol.

The US not honouring these treaties hardly makes it North Korea, don't be hyperbolic

[Kowani]

And now we’re on to blatant ignorance.

You draw an arbitrary law between international and domestic law that doesn’t exist.

It actually isn't 'ignorance' and no the line isn't arbitrary, its the whole foundation of public international law called 'dualism'.

It is ignorance. You assert that States don’t care about whether other states carry out their laws, when-well, they do. It’s a good measure of trustworthiness. And in the case of certain laws, of the ethics of the state in question.

[Purgatio]

It actually isn't 'ignorance' and no the line isn't arbitrary, its the whole foundation of public international law called 'dualism'.

It is ignorance. You assert that States don’t care about whether other states carry out their laws, when-well, they do. It’s a good measure of trustworthiness. And in the case of certain laws, of the ethics of the state in question.

It might be a good measure of trustworthiness to you, and maybe to individual citizens who want to know whether to trust a government or not, but not to a national government. A national government of State X only cares about whether other States abide by international law or not, because its dealings with other States (like treaties, custom, international organisations) are governed by the international legal order which is strictly-separated from the national legal order (ie dualism), hence the question is whether other States respect the international legal order and its norms, principles and dictates.

Whether a State follows its own internal national rules, however, is a purely-domestic affair, no different from whether an internal administrative agency follows its internal procedure. It has no bearing on international diplomacy because its governed by a separate international legal order. Maybe you as an individual look at these things to measure State trustworthiness, but national governments don't, and that's my point.

[Neko-koku]

It is ignorance. You assert that States don’t care about whether other states carry out their laws, when-well, they do. It’s a good measure of trustworthiness. And in the case of certain laws, of the ethics of the state in question.

It might be a good measure of trustworthiness to you, and maybe to individual citizens who want to know whether to trust a government or not, but not to a national government. A national government of State X only cares about whether other States abide by international law or not, because its dealings with other States (like treaties, custom, international organisations) are governed by the international legal order which is strictly-separated from the national legal order (ie dualism), hence the question is whether other States respect the international legal order and its norms, principles and dictates.

Whether a State follows its own internal national rules, however, is a purely-domestic affair, no different from whether an internal administrative agency follows its internal procedure. It has no bearing on international diplomacy because its governed by a separate international legal order. Maybe you as an individual look at these things to measure State trustworthiness, but national governments don't, and that's my point.

That's a strictly modern French interpretation of the word "sovereignty". Before the French centralized state the world was mostly feudal. Countries often overlapped with each other and have special privileges in one another. The establishment of UN, EU and regional autonomies is essentially returning the world to its more natural and historically normal state.

This is fairly easy to understand. Is it true that whatever happened in Korea was none of China's business? Nope. Why? Because there was a Chinese suzerainty over Korea.

[Ors Might]

Has Asian-American or African-American culture 'died out' just because they don't have reservations, tribal sovereignty and now a special delegate that they can vote to send to Congress on top of having the right to vote in ordinary Congressional elections?

Native Americans are a much smaller group, the only thing that has prevented their communities from being swallowed up is that they can forbid non-Natives to move in.

..Maybe I’m just dumb and/or tired but this reads a lot like race-based immigration policy, which is a Bad.

[Purgatio]

It might be a good measure of trustworthiness to you, and maybe to individual citizens who want to know whether to trust a government or not, but not to a national government. A national government of State X only cares about whether other States abide by international law or not, because its dealings with other States (like treaties, custom, international organisations) are governed by the international legal order which is strictly-separated from the national legal order (ie dualism), hence the question is whether other States respect the international legal order and its norms, principles and dictates.

Whether a State follows its own internal national rules, however, is a purely-domestic affair, no different from whether an internal administrative agency follows its internal procedure. It has no bearing on international diplomacy because its governed by a separate international legal order. Maybe you as an individual look at these things to measure State trustworthiness, but national governments don't, and that's my point.

That's a strictly modern French interpretation of the word "sovereignty". Before the French centralized state the world was mostly feudal. Countries often overlapped with each other and have special privileges in one another. The establishment of UN, EU and regional autonomies is essentially returning the world to its more natural and historically normal state.

This is fairly easy to understand. Is it true that whatever happened in Korea was none of China's business? Nope. Why? Because there was a Chinese suzerainty over Korea.

That might have been true then, but the international legal order has since evolved to recognise a customary legal principle of the sovereign equality of States (ie that each State has a separate, equal jurisdiction and equal legal competence to assume rights and obligations in international law), which stands in contradiction to protectorate, vassal or suzerain status. Of course, as you point out this can change in future, but I'm just describing the present state of international law, not what it could become in future.

[Neko-koku]

That's a strictly modern French interpretation of the word "sovereignty". Before the French centralized state the world was mostly feudal. Countries often overlapped with each other and have special privileges in one another. The establishment of UN, EU and regional autonomies is essentially returning the world to its more natural and historically normal state.

This is fairly easy to understand. Is it true that whatever happened in Korea was none of China's business? Nope. Why? Because there was a Chinese suzerainty over Korea.

That might have been true then, but the international legal order has since evolved to recognise a customary legal principle of the sovereign equality of States (ie that each State has a separate, equal jurisdiction and equal legal competence to assume rights and obligations in international law), which stands in contradiction to protectorate, vassal or suzerain status. Of course, as you point out this can change in future, but I'm just describing the present state of international law, not what it could become in future.

I would say that this was and still is to considerable extant true. However the world isn't evolving in this direction.

[Cetacea]

So not only did you dodge my first point, that you have to jump to “muh egalitarianism” without actually understanding how the reservations work makes me think you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I know how reservations work, at present, I just disagree with them. I don't see why there's a need for the legal and jurisdictional confusions that arise from tribal sovereignty, I can't tell if you're deliberately misconstruing my argument so let me make it clear, I'm aware that Native Americans at present are covered by tribal sovereignty on reservations, but I disagree with that because I regard it as unequal legal treatment based on ethnicity.

Except Tsalagi rights aren’t based on ethnicity they’re based on recognition of Indian Land as distinct and sovereign under the US Constitution. don’t get the two things mixed up

[Purgatio]

I know how reservations work, at present, I just disagree with them. I don't see why there's a need for the legal and jurisdictional confusions that arise from tribal sovereignty, I can't tell if you're deliberately misconstruing my argument so let me make it clear, I'm aware that Native Americans at present are covered by tribal sovereignty on reservations, but I disagree with that because I regard it as unequal legal treatment based on ethnicity.

Except Tsalagi rights aren’t based on ethnicity they’re based on recognition of Indian Land as distinct and sovereign under the US Constitution. don’t get the two things mixed up

And you're ability to join a Native American tribe and become governed under tribal sovereignty is determined by.....??

It starts with an E.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I love people arguing against this as though this actually would do literally anything to them