What Aspect of the Irish 'NON' Do the Brussels & Paris Philosopher Kings Not Understand?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/14/editorial-check-of-the-irish/


Check of the Irish



Editorial

Washington Times

July 14, 2008

Pronunciation:
\ˈnō\
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English nā, from ne not + ā always; akin to Old Norse & Old High German ne not, Latin ne-, Greek nē- — more at aye
Date: before 12th century

>1 achiefly Scottish : not b—used as a function word to express the negative of an alternative choice or possibility
>2: in no respect or degree —used in comparisons

>3: not so —used to express negation, dissent, denial, or refusal <no, I'm not going

>4—used with a following adjective to imply a meaning expressed by the opposite positive statement no uncertain terms

>5—used as a function word to emphasize a following negative or to introduce a more emphatic, explicit, or comprehensive statement no, it's gigantic

>6—used as an interjection to express surprise, doubt, or incredulity7—used in combination with a verb to form a compound adjective 8: in negation no>

[See: Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/no ]

The sky over Europe is not falling. That's the bottom line of Ireland's rejection Thursday of the Lisbon Treaty.

Of the 27 European Union member states, Ireland, the only to require a popular referendum, has usefully tested an otherwise very insulated, elite-driven expansion of EU power. It has rejected the best-laid plans of Commissioner Jose Manuel Barroso and allies. At this point, the EU should realize that its long-term prospects require it to acknowledge the legitimate objections of real, actual voters. This, of course, was the same lesson that went unheeded in 2005, when France and the Netherlands issued comparable "No" votes to the EU Constitution, killing it.

In the runup to Thursday, Mr. Barroso announced with much drama that "There is no Plan B," warning of "a very negative effect for the European Union" before an audience at the European Policy Center, as if he meant it. This, it turns out, was bluster. Now he says: "I believe the treaty is alive and we should now try to find a solution."

The intended solution, which could only be described as a "Plan B," is to press on with the Lisbon Treaty anyway, with some Ireland-only modifications.

Mr. Barroso wants Ireland to resubmit the treaty for a vote once its opt-out clauses are in order. The approach suggests a belief that a treaty that fails its only popular vote faces no questions of mandate or long-term viability. The willful obtuseness here is the real danger to the EU's prospects.

[SO MUCH FOR INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS & POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION!! EUROPEANS BEWARE!! THE BRUSSELS BUREAUCRATS WILL CRAM DOWN ANYTHING THEY WISH IF THE IRISH SUBMIT TO THIS KIND OF INTIMIDATION!!!]

Any political institution that aims for longevity must develop a healthy respect for the public will. The best ones are grounded in it. The sad truth of the EU is that its leadership has never been willing to do this. It openly disdains "the rabble." Mr. Barroso and allies try to avoid public input wherever possible, conducting end-runs around non-elite checks on their authority. They failed to learn the lessons of France and the Netherlands three years ago. This week they fail yet again.

The EU will survive, as will the integrated European economy. The real casualties this week are the credibility of those who made the direst of predictions on Wednesday but little more than 24 hours later were found pledging to carry on as if nothing had happened.

[UNFORTUNATELY, THE PHILOSOPHER KINGS OF MODERN BRUSSELS HAVE FAILED TO LEARN THE TRAGIC LESSON OF THE PHILOSOPHER KINGS OF ANCIENT ATHENS.]

[See: Eva Brann, Plato's Impossible Polity, A review of Plato's Republic: A Study, by Stanley Rosen

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1322/article_detail.asp .]

["...So, first, who is this philosopher-king for whose benefit the Republic has a metaphysical center? Open the book to its middle by page count and there he is (or she, as Socrates explicitly says)—the central human figure of the dialogue, whose introduction will raise a huge wave of derision. Rosen rightly emphasizes a crucial aspect of these philosophers: they "depend upon the existence of Ideas"; their "most important qualification is to 'see' the Ideas." Accordingly, Rosen has not only explained very clearly in various places what a Platonic idea is—minimally, a formal structure necessary for identifying and speaking about things—but he has also set out lucidly what is problematic about it. He emphasizes that these structures are conceived as patterns or models, and Part III begins with a very illuminating discussion of the several meanings of Plato's term paradeigma. Thus, philosophers have non-sensual patterns to look to. But then the question is: how does that make them fit to be kings? Rosen thinks that Plato has shown only that philosophers are lovers of ideas but not at all how the ideas bestow the practical knowledge required for kingship. I would respond that the Socratic position is that to know the ideas of Courage, Temperance, and Justice is to be courageous, temperate, and just—surely a good beginning for the life of a ruler. The source of the being, growth, and knowableness of the ideas themselves is that notorious Good. It too is, I think, a defensible preoccupation for those who are to govern. Socrates presents it in a simile, a verbal image (eikon). The Good is like the sun in its being and power—except that it has no being, for it is "beyond being" (509 b). Rosen reasonably asks us to accept the idea of the Good as "intrinsic" to the intelligibility of human existence. But then he balks at the one metaphysical feature assigned to it, its "beyond-being."Yet the Good is not quite sufficiently delineated as perhaps "a set of properties of Platonic ideas," nor put aside as "too cryptic to be amenable to an entirely satisfactory explanation." The ancient tradition is that "The Good" was a name for "The One," the comprehending source of unity, the principle of "one-out-of-many," not itself a being but the unity of all beings. It is the very principle of our republic: "E pluribus unum." That is why the philosopher-kings must come to behold it; far from being useless, it is the knowledge of communities, whether of ideal beings in their ontological context or of human beings in their private friendships or in their civic associations. For the philosopher-kings, even if they have, by my notion, no city but only themselves to rule, are yet friends and fellow-citizens. Don't those of us who still teach the liberal arts (the very arts set out in the Republic's curriculum for philosopher-kings) hope to educate citizens in just that way, by asking them to think about what it means to be together as a community emerging from individuals?"]

Universalizing the U.S. Constitution and its Accompanying Bill of Rights, Which Together Remain the Only Truly Enforced Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1210866222.shtml


ITSSD Response to:


Global Governance vs. Liberal Democracy? We are Going to Have to Choose, by John Fonte


OPINIO JURIS


May 18, 2008


Global Governance vs. Liberal Democracy? We are going to have to choose
by John Fonte


I want to thank Peter for inviting me to participate in this discussion. It has been very useful and clarifying. I will close with a few thoughts. Peter's book addresses what will become the major issue of world politics in the 21st century and I'm grateful for his efforts. He has made a strong descriptive case (as has Alex and others), but, in the end, we are all moral human beings interested in the normative.


What we are talking about is the ultimate normative question of politics going back to Plato and Aristotle: who shall govern? For many among Western elites the big idea of the coming century will be how do go beyond the nation-state and national citizenship and create some new form of global governance. In my view (and I realize I'm in a minority in this discussion) global governance (as it has been articulated to date) presents a direct challenge to the legitimacy and authority of the liberal democratic nation-state in general and to American constitutional sovereignty in particular. It is not possible, in my view, to have the new forms of post-national global governance (that have been described in our exchanges) and have, at the same time, constitutional democratic government. At the end of the day, we must choose global governance or liberal democracy?


I choose liberal democracy and its only real historical home, the liberal democratic nation-state as the highest political authority, above any international institution or laws. This is a universal principle and American foreign policy should apply this universally, speaking not simply for American democratic sovereignty, but for the democratic sovereignty of other liberal democratic states as well in arguments over, for example, the International Criminal Court (ICC). Particularly, we should speak up for and protect those democratic nation-states that are under pressure from transnational institutions and forces such as Israel and the Czech Republic (non-ratifiers of the ICC). I will be addressing these issues in my forthcoming (2009) book, Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or be Ruled by Others? (Encounter Books). Thanks Peter. 05.15.2008 at 11:43am


(link)Ron Moss (mail) (www):

Of course global governance presents a direct challenge to the nation-state, just as the formation of tribes presented a challenge to clans and the formation of nations presented a challenge to tribes. It does not present a challenge to democracy. The question is how are Human Rights best served? Individual Human Rights must be the foundation of all governance. The world has become globalized but is not governed globally. We are a world community, like it or not. How can we address climate change other than on a global basis? How can we allow the free flow of capital without global accounting and disclosure standards? How can we protect oppressed peoples other than on a global basis? As the US Constitution says, each human being has rights that no government can take away. No sovereignty, global or local, should be recognized that deprives human beings of their rights.

5.15.2008 2:17pm


(link)nightstallion:

Absolute nonsense. There is no single good reason why the US, Israel and Czechia should not ratify the ICC Statute, period.
5.16.2008 6:39am


(link)Lawrence Kogan (mail) (www):

I believe that Mr. Fonte is correct in his assertion that Americans are not ready or willing to concede the obsolecence of the nation state in furtherance of greater global governance. In fact, they are more likely to object to such a movement than is being represented by the globalists.


I previously engaged in a dialogue with Peter Spiro about the hierarchy of law within the US. I insisted that a treaty is of the same legal significance within the US as is a federal statute (i.e., a legislative promulgation of Congress), and that both are lesser in legal significance than is the U.S. Constitution. In other words, in the case of a conflict, the US Constitution trumps both a federal statute AND a treaty. This truism is absolute insofar as the Supreme Court has ruled that a treaty, like a federal statute, cannot contravene the Constitution and its Bill of Rights and remain legally valid for purposes of US law.


Of course, Peter, being a revisionist, disagrees with this outcome. And, based on his prior statements to me, he endeavors to reinterpret US case precedent and the original intent of the US Constitution (particularly its federal treaty-making clause) for the purpose of facilitating greater US legal harmonization with foreign national and international laws.


There are a number of reasons why the citizens of the U.S., boasting the world's oldest functioning representative democracy, truly a republic, should be reluctant to subject themselves to the evolving bureaucratic institutions of global governance that lack significant checks and balances and public accountability. Chief among the reasons why Americans should resist integration within such institutions, is that such institutions do not recognize, reflect and embody the primacy of natural individual rights, as embodied and incorporated within the U.S. Constitution, its accompanying Bill of Rights and the U.S. Declaration of Independence.


The ICC, like most other international institutions, is at best a compromise between the competing common law vs. civil law institutions of Anglo-American and Continental legal systems. And, we can all see how 'well-functioning' and respectful of individual rights the emerging EU regional Continental legal system is, especially considering how the European national and regional politicians have handled the EU Constitution/EU Treaty issue. In a nutshell, the politicians along with the national and regional governmental bureaucrats trampled on the individual rights of European citizens by misrepresenting the nature of the new treaty, following the prior failed public referenda in 2005. Fortunately, Giscard D'Estaing publicly admitted that the Treaty was merely a subterfuge - a restated and reorganized EU Constitution that the politicans and bureaucrats were trying to cram down the national legislatures without public consent - rule BY law (or rule of MEN).


This continuing disrespect for the rule OF law is symptomatic of European Continental law. While they give lip service to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other lofty instruments, they do NOT practice what they preach. For example, European scholars readily admit that under the Continental legal system, guilt is presumed before innocence in the event of an alleged violation of civil or criminal law (e.g., one need only review the bases and modus operandi undertaken in the recent antitrust raids in Europe), whereas under the Anglo-American system, the opposite is true (i.e., the government must show 'probable cause' to issue a warrant). Also, European scholars readily admit that exclusive private property rights are 'negative' rights under the Anglo-American legal system (i.e., contra the rights of other property holders and of the government,) whereas, under the Continental legal system, property rights are deemed as 'positive' rights subject to governmental override when government considers them to be inconsistent with the public/social interest. Hence, European scholars acknowledge that property rights in Europe are ATTENTUATED. I would be pleased to provide Peter with the growing scholarship in this area if he requires a bit of persuasion.


The UN/EU philosophy of climate change as the sin qua non justification for greater global goverance perhaps reflects the greatest attempted mass fraud on the human race ever conceived since the Marxist and Nazi eras. When one looks closely at the emerging regulatory instrument of choice i.e., the nontransparent and overly complex GHG emissions cap &trade system, one can clearly see how no specific emissions reductions achieved by particular emitters can be guaranteed, how the major GHG brokerages on Wall Street and in London's financial district will be the ones to make most of the money, and how energy, goods and services prices of consumers on both sides of the Atlantic will significantly rise, all in the name of 'global governance'. The whole purpose behind a nontransparent regulatory instrument such as this is 'burden sharing' - UN/EU speak for wealth redistribution.


While the world has become more integrated and the interests of diverse peoples have become more closely aligned than ever before, this does NOT suggest that only ONE analyis, ONE solution and/or one set of 'standards' is called for. Nor does it suggest that the only model of governance to address global issues is that of a massive supranational global regulatory welfare state that incorporates values found within EU Continental law and cultural preferences that place the individual secondary to society. Despite my disagreement with Mr. Moss's and Mr. Spiro's proposed global governance prescriptions, I do agree with Mr. Moss' statement concerning the US Constitution. "As the US Constitution says, each human being has rights that no government can take away. No sovereignty, global or local, should be recognized that deprives human beings of their rights."


Now, if globalists wish cover up these and other distinctions in order to 'sell' their brand of Global Governance, they should be well aware that there a number of us out there who will continue to point out and press them on issues that must first be resolved before the US engages in any further global integration. Americans must be educated by Congress about what is at stake. If the globalists are as confident about their new world system as they claim to be, then they should be willing to put their words on the public record for Americans to see. Americans must be ensured that they are to retain at the very least the same rights and opportunities to which they are entitled under the US Constitution and its accompanying Bill of Rights, which was and remains the only truly enforced Declaration of Human Rights. Nothing less would be acceptable.

The U.S. Constitution and its accompanying Bill of Rights remains the only bulwark against the creeping international laws and bureaucratic institutions of the supranational global governance movement. Since that movement seeks to establish the primacy of the global public good over the private good, it would behoove us all if we were to help Americans to quickly become reacquainted with these founding documents and the European history (i.e., the Enlightenment Era) from which they arose.

5.18.2008 12:39pm

Global Integration Must Be Shaped by U.S. Constitutional Principles That Preserve National Sovereignty; NOT by Top-Down Supranational Institutions

http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1210866222.shtml


The discussion contained in the above link reflects a growing consensus that American politicians, particularly the next President of the United States and the U.S. Congress, must ensure that any further U.S. global integration with international institutions must be conditioned upon those international institutions adopting, implementing and enforcing U.S. constitutional/human rights principles. These principles which are found in the Articles of the U.S. Constitution, the Amendments of its accompanying Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, include among others: 1) Adequate checks & balances / separation of powers/federalism; 2) Transparency of laws, regulations and standards; 3) The rule of law, NOT the rule by law (or the rule of men); 4) The public accountability of government officials at all levels; 5) Strong recognition and protection of natural exclusive private property rights, tangible as well as intangible; 6) No taxation or regulation without representation; and 7) Strong recognition and respect for individualism rather than communalism.


The U.S. Constitution, its accompanying Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence remain the only bulwark against the creeping international laws and bureaucratic institutions of the supranational global governance movement that seek to undermine the sovereignty of the world's remaining nation-states, including the United States. Since that movement endeavors to establish the primacy of the global 'public good' over the 'private good' and to attenuate private property rights and redistribute economic wealth for social purposes, it would behoove all Americans if we were to quickly become reacquainted with these founding documents and the European history (i.e., the Enlightenment Era) from which they arose.

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION: 1787



THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION - 1789



THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE - 1776