Enough is enough.
We are not here to subsidize your clueless business plans or reward your failures.
We are not here to subsidize your clueless business plans or reward your failures.
Posted on 10/18/2009 2:59:20 PM PDT by FromLori
Video at site
bookmark
Related article
Rotsa ruck with enforcement.
So, he signs this treaty without Senate ratification?? Our Senate has to ratify treaties. He can sign all day but that is not US law! It is meaningless. Obama sucks! There, I said it!
I posted this on another thread, but it bears repeating:
This is chilling, however, not unexpected. Zero and his kronies are in place to turn the US into a third world country AND there is nothing we can do because zero already has his instructions to sign it. What will follow this is 1.) Martial law will be declared; 2.) Riots will ensure; 3.) UN forces will be brought into the US and dissenters will be silenced forever. I can assure you that this will be broadcast on MSM. The likes of MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, etc. will be rewarded by having their names changed to UN media 1,2,3 and so on. The reports of these stations are going to wake up too late and wonder what the hell happened.
Zero is a fraud and a traitor to the US Constitution!
So, to answer your questions, many of us will NOT survive.
You’re right about the Senate having to ratify it. If this doesn’t get people worked up, nothing will.
I am afraid you are dreaming we are still in a democratic societey...not anymore. This is fascism and Obama can sign anything he wants as long as nobody opposes him in Congress. Period. That WILL happen unless we wake up..
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/not-evil-just-wrong
Watch “Not Evil Just Wrong” tonight on channel above at 8pm ET
Chat feature active now.
He says “And no other subsequent government can take it back”.
Uh, I beg to differ. No one had ever broken free of their government before the United States of America and I guarandamntee that it can be done again.
Brzezinski and Soros. Washington Post says it’s Bilderberg
According to Reid v. Covert (1957), the treaty power cannot amend the Constitution. That is, despite the strong language of the Supremacy Clause, the only authority that a treaty can have is an authority already delegated to the government that makes the treaty.
Since our sovereignty is diffused among 280 million people, it cannot be impaired, much less ceded, by the government at Washington.
But that doesn't mean they won't try.
To have a civil war (a real one, with tanks, planes, and armies), you have to split the Armed Forces. To do that, you need a scenario where reasonable and patriotic officers can reach different conclusions about the same facts.
Therefore, certain officers could, in good conscience, conclude that the orders of the Commander-in-Chief to execute certain treaty powers SHOULD be obeyed, because of the supremacy clause, while other equally good officers could reach the opposite conclusion.
To make matters worse, I seriously doubt that there are 5 votes on the present Supreme Court to uphold Reid v. Covert.
Think who is in charge I don’t think it is impossible with this administration.
BUMP!
Jericho? Who knows I think they will definitely try to do it though.
He has his 60 senators that will rubberstamp it.
If you think the Senate won’t sign, you’re smoking something.
Takes 2/3 (67) to ratify a treaty.
Yes, you are correct in stating that the US Senate must ratify a treaty in order for the treaty to be valid. However, what is missing from your statement is that treaties and any legislation that is repugnant to the US Constitution is VOID.
The US Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land"; and, with the exception of an amendment, nothing can modify any of the provisions therein.
If anyone should be so shortsighted as to try an end run around the US Constitution, they will be met by a group of citizens who will set them straight.
Kyoto went down 95–0.
It doesn't matter if all 100 Senators ratify a treaty - if it pretends to impair or dilute the sovereignty of the People of the United States, it is not worth the paper it's written on.
The government at Washington is not an equal partner to the sovereign governments of Europe. THOSE governments have plenary power to act, overriding the wishes of their subjects if necessary.
The government erected by the 1788 Constitution, as amended, has no such power.
Due to take place in December;
From a thread yesterday.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2364330/posts
Officers don't swear to obey the POTUS as enlisted do.
Does that affect your argument? I don't see how ceding sovereignty could be Constitutional.
Blue helmets make good targets, specially if they are foreign UN forces.
“The likes of MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, etc. will be rewarded by having their names changed to UN media 1,2,3 and so on. The reports of these stations are going to wake up too late and wonder what the hell happened.”
Wake up too late? They already know whats happening and are in full support of a dictatorship.
And you don’t think that he can bribe/beg/suborn/seduce/con seven Republican senators? Starting with Snowe, Collins, McCain, and Gregg, he only needs three more.
Do you *really* think he can’t get three?
Doesn’t matter. I was simply responding to your statement about needing 60 votes to ratify a treaty. IF (and I haven’t read this thing so it’s a big ‘if’) this treaty cedes US sovereignty to a world government, it’s worthless. Jim Noble is right in his post #22.
Thats funny and SCARY at the same time.
My point was that he already has 60, getting some RINO turncoats would be easy.
The fact that the treaty violates the Constitution wouldn’t stop them from enforcing it and victimizing US citizens.
Well, it isn't, but officers are trained (and, I think, predisposed) to obey duly constituted authority.
Let's start with Article VI, second paragraph: "...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."
Now, you and I no doubt agree that Reid v. Covert governs, and that the Constitution doesn't really MEAN what it appears to say.
But, if the C-in-C says something, and the Supreme Court rules 6-3 that he's right, not all officers will disobey - nor should they.
Wrong! Living here in a dense population of current and former military officers...the many I've had contact with over the years believe that they are trained and SWORN to uphold an defend the Constitution of the United States FIRST....and obey constitutional authority SECOND....
This sophistry which is falsely used to claim the supremacy of treaties to the US Constitution is the brainchild of John Foster Dulles. It was formulated as a deliberate technique to undermine American sovereignty.
It relies on the readers' ignorance of the fact that the Framers were precise in their use of language, and when they were referring to the US Constitution they said this Constitution, whereas the term the Constitution referred to the Constitutions of the various states.
If you parse the sentence correctly it is A(X or Y)=AX or AY. (Anything in)((the Constitution of any State) or (the Laws of any State)) = Anything in the Constitution of any State or Anything in the Laws of any State.
If they had meant to say that treaties were supreme to the US Constitution they would have used the same formulation "this Consitution" as they did throughout the rest of the document.
You are correct, unfortunately, as to the real life scenario. Whatever the Court says, no matter how wrong, will probably be followed by most.
I am banking that the military will not back King Obama. These boys and gals are volunteers to save America. I don't feel that they will fire on their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, etc. If I was in the military and an order was given to me to kill my mothers, the person giving the order would soon be in a body bag.
I'm sure that's right - but a crisis is almost upon us wherein reasonable officers are going to arrive at different conclusions about what that means.
“If this doesn’t get people worked up, nothing will.”
For sure!
But first people need to hear about it. Write a letter to the editor or call a talk show.
Thanks for the explanation.
I see now why it is so hard to ratify a treaty. Since it can have such fundamental effects it should be hard.
Too bad the conditions at the federal level are so unfavorable for an effective patriotic scrutiny of anything.
This post is probably even racist.
Let Glenn Beck know about it!!!
“Let Glenn Beck know about it!!! “
Good idea, but let others know as well, so Glenn Beck doesn’t stand alone and doesn’t come off as a conspiracy host.
The Constitution itself says that treaties we make are part of the Supreme Law of the Land. I don't know of any clause in it that limits or modifies treaties to any other part of the Constitution.
“I am banking that the military will not back King Obama. These boys and gals are volunteers to save America. I don’t feel that they will fire on their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, etc. If I was in the military and an order was given to me to kill my mothers, the person giving the order would soon be in a body bag. “
I asked a guy that was headed back to Iraq and he said that if he was given the order he would fire on his fellow Americans and that an order is an order period. So, I am not counting on our military turning on zero and protecting us.
He needs the Senate - two thirds - to ratify it. But...who the heck knows if we even have a constiution anymore.
It depends if the people willingly go along with the radical leftist agenda. As you say, we can always secede.
BTTT
Sent to Fox News and Glenn Beck.
Just heard Beck say he was going to have Lord Monckten on his show along with John Bolton .
Bump!!
Did Beck show this video last night? I DVRed it and watched and must have missed this video.
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.