Skip to comments.
Obama trying to undermine our 2nd Amendment rights in a typical Obama way
Coach is Right ^
| 12/26/14
| Doug Book
Posted on 12/26/2014 9:12:14 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
To: Oldpuppymax
The damnable part is they keep trying, like the raptors in Jurassic Park.
That tenacity has pretty much worked for gay “marriage” and now they are going after the Constitution itself.
Teach your children well, for they will be the ones fighting the last thread of the Constitution against being ruled from Brussels.
2
posted on
12/26/2014 9:17:12 AM PST
by
freedumb2003
(AGW: Settled Science? If so, there would only be one model and it would agree with measurements)
To: freedumb2003
Should this be a pen and phone alert? In my eyes, none of this u.n. garbage trumps the constitution. As long as the senate (honorable gaggle?!) doesn’t RATify it, as far as I’m concerned, they can use it as tp.
3
posted on
12/26/2014 9:19:30 AM PST
by
rktman
(Served in the Navy to protect the rights of those that want to take some of mine away. Odd, eh?)
To: rktman
>>Should this be a pen and phone alert? In my eyes, none of this u.n. garbage trumps the constitution.<<
My point is that it doesn’t now (although IIRC, “International law” was successfully used in a case early last year — I don’t remember the case or how) — but we need to be vigilant — and the children REALLY need to be vigilant.
The camel is trying to get into the tent and he is nosing at all corners.
4
posted on
12/26/2014 9:23:50 AM PST
by
freedumb2003
(AGW: Settled Science? If so, there would only be one model and it would agree with measurements)
To: freedumb2003
Wouldn’t it be refreshing to have someone run for President and say that he’s going to round file all u.n. BS treaties and sign a memorandum voiding all local anti gun laws, and, well, the wish list goes on for miles. I’ll most likely be disappointed in the next batch of can’t-idates.
5
posted on
12/26/2014 9:27:18 AM PST
by
rktman
(Served in the Navy to protect the rights of those that want to take some of mine away. Odd, eh?)
To: rktman
I will be happy with a POTUS who promises to sign just as many XOs as the obozo, since he/she will undo every single one.
6
posted on
12/26/2014 9:31:07 AM PST
by
freedumb2003
(AGW: Settled Science? If so, there would only be one model and it would agree with measurements)
To: rktman
In my eyes, none of this u.n. garbage trumps the constitution. What constitution?
7
posted on
12/26/2014 9:43:45 AM PST
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Any energy source that requires a subsidy is, by definition, "unsustainable.")
To: freedumb2003
The damnable part is they keep trying, like the raptors in Jurassic Park. And the GOPe just sits there. The take-away here is that Obama and company have a plan, or a series of plans that they execute. The GOPe has the plan of default, that is, react. Like playing eternal firemen, the fire is going to win. Like playing an endless game of whack-a-mole, the mole will win.
8
posted on
12/26/2014 9:46:37 AM PST
by
VRW Conspirator
(American Jobs for American Workers)
To: freedumb2003
Obama way: Say “Second Amendment is so valuable” while his actions cut it to smithereens.
9
posted on
12/26/2014 10:09:24 AM PST
by
The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
To: Oldpuppymax
Given the current understanding of the relevance of the Constitution throughout the government, yes, the unratified treaty will take precedence and the Justice Department will act accordingly. Importation of all arms and ammo will be halted and prices of ammo will be forced through the roof by requiring tungsten bullets and shot.
10
posted on
12/26/2014 10:10:03 AM PST
by
arthurus
To: rktman
As long as the senate (honorable gaggle?!) doesnt RATify it, as far as Im concerned, they can use it as tp.
True. However, if they do ratify the treaty, then a treaty can take away our rights as defined by the Constitution.
Article 6, Section 2: 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.
Note that the Constitution makes treaties co-equal with the Constitution itself. And there is precedent that treaties that are signed by the executive branch (including, for example, Secretary of State) will be considered in effect in the interim until the Senate finally dispositions them. This applies to peace treaties, for example, where the fighting stops when the treaty is signed.
11
posted on
12/26/2014 10:12:52 AM PST
by
Phlyer
To: VRW Conspirator
The GOPe has the plan of default, that is, react. Like playing eternal firemen,You give the gopes too much credit. Their reaction is purely vocal and weak. They do not even turn on the water to their hoses or unreel them.
12
posted on
12/26/2014 10:12:59 AM PST
by
arthurus
To: Phlyer
"Note that the Constitution makes treaties co-equal with the Constitution itself. And there is precedent that treaties that are signed by the executive branch (including, for example, Secretary of State) will be considered in effect in the interim until the Senate finally dispositions them. This applies to peace treaties, for example, where the fighting stops when the treaty is signed. "
Article 6, Section 2: 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.
I disagree. The logic of the way you read it the "Laws of the United States" would also trump the Constitution which they do not.
13
posted on
12/26/2014 10:36:45 AM PST
by
WMarshal
(Free citizen, never a subject or a civilian)
To: Oldpuppymax
14
posted on
12/26/2014 10:38:40 AM PST
by
Perseverando
(In Washington it's common knowledge that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible to be POTUS.)
To: Oldpuppymax
A 2/3 vote by Congress supersedes ALL law except those 10 pesky mutterings from 230yrs ago.
But all it would take is one Executive to decide he's not going to submit to the USSC and a treaty becomes the law of the land.
15
posted on
12/26/2014 10:54:27 AM PST
by
Mariner
(War Criminal #18)
To: Phlyer
Thanks. I knew I knew that from previous discussions but couldn’t remember where it was stated. A lot of people will argue that treaties won’t override the constitution. They could be wrong.
16
posted on
12/26/2014 11:09:33 AM PST
by
rktman
(Served in the Navy to protect the rights of those that want to take some of mine away. Odd, eh?)
To: WMarshal
The logic of the way you read it the "Laws of the United States" would also trump the Constitution which they do not.
First off, you don't know how I interpret the Constitution with respect to laws, because I didn't say anything about that. Don't try to put 'words in my mouth'.
Second, I don't read it that way anyway, because the Constitution addresses, " . . . Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . .[of the Constitution] which means that laws cannot 'trump the Constitution' as you said.
Note that the clause on Treaties is after the limitation on "in Pursuance thereof". This paragraph clearly states that Treaties - if approved by the Senate - are co-equal with the text of the Constitution itself . . . which I think makes Treaties very dangerous.
17
posted on
12/26/2014 11:46:53 AM PST
by
Phlyer
To: Oldpuppymax
18
posted on
12/26/2014 12:59:00 PM PST
by
piytar
(No government has ever wanted its people to be defenseless for any good reason.)
To: Phlyer
Note that the clause on Treaties is after the limitation on "in Pursuance thereof". I would like to argue that the 9th and 10th amendments being after this clause would preclude any usurpation of rights and powers. In fact any subsequent amendments that do not specifically mention abridgement of the 9th and 10th should probably not be construed so as to abridge them.
Should the government decide to interpret a treaty so as to abridge the 9th and 10th amendments, it would seem reasonable to assume the worst and conclude the government is illegitimate and there is no jurisdiction in which to enjoy due process of law.
This is the danger of the game they play...
19
posted on
12/26/2014 1:35:20 PM PST
by
no-s
(when democracy is displaced by tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote)
To: Oldpuppymax
With obamsky’s newest minions now in control of the Senate, this treaty is assured ratification...IMHO...
20
posted on
12/26/2014 1:35:26 PM PST
by
SuperLuminal
(Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson