[Carry_Okie]

It's been quite a while since I've posted an article, but the situation so warrants.

Enjoy! (sort of)

[Carry_Okie]

Bonk

[Republic of Texas]

Thanks! So the upshot is that we’re screwed, right?

[Lurkina.n.Learnin]

I was just reading this yesterday

Obama and Clinton cede to UN small arms treaty
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2370732/posts?page=1

[Carry_Okie]

Bang!

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Ping for historical procrastination.

The treaties are coming home to RULE the roost.

[EdReform]

BTTT

[Carry_Okie]

Not our normal topic of discussion, but I think you'll enjoy it anyway.

[AuntB]

Interesting! Good to see you writing again.

About treaties...the congress can and HAS reversed treaties. They are NOT the last word. In 1866, they made a treaty with the Cherokee Nation, holding they would not be taxed on tobacco.

[snip] The Boudinot Tabacco Factory was located just inside Indian Territory near Siloam Springs, Arkansas and proved popular and lucrative to local businesses. Noticing the success of the enterprise and the temptation of revenue and reprisal, the government acted upon a law they had just imposed for a federal excise tax on tobacco and distilled spirits which did not exempt Indian Territory.

Watie refused to pay what he considered an illegitimate tax against a sovereign state and in violation of the treaty made only a year before which held Cherokee or other tribes were not subject such tax. Boudinot, having been involved in writing the language of the treaty, knew the congress and the government had acted outside the agreement.
Nevertheless, federal officers confiscated and closed the factory, seized the assets to pay the back tax and forced Watie into bankruptcy. Boudinot filed suit against the government, but typically the case was long delayed. This became a landmark decision, setting precedent that a law passed by Congress could supersede provisions of even a recent treaty.

From Chapter 16 “Jesus Wept” An American Story
http://jesusweptanamericanstory.blogspot.com/

[Carry_Okie]

Enviro ping.

[LomanBill]

As always, an effective communicator. Thanks for this and other work.

[Joe Brower]

Carry_Okie is correct in post#33 about the surreptitious nature of treaties. It is to be expected that this sort of mechanism be used to strip us (legally, anyways) of our God-given freedoms. As usual, sneaking things into law behind our backs and beneath our notice are the standard modus operandi of the modern-day tyrant.

[sasquatch]

Mississippi
initialing
?
?

[bamahead]

Excellent analysis of how treaty power can be used to override and usurp our Constitutionally enshrined liberties. This is rapidly becoming the new M.O. of those who would seek to deprive us.



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)

[Jim Noble]

I think the Supremacy Clause may very well be the cause of the next civil war. It is poorly written, and there is plenty of room among the words for principled disagreement.

First of all, to state the obvious: If the President and 2/3 of the Senate could amend the Constitution, there would be no need for an arduous amendment process. Second, also obvious: the government erected by the Constitution is not sovereign in the European sense of the word, it exercises certain powers traditional to sovereignty, but only those delegated by the actual sovereign (the People of the United States).

Now, on to the language:

"...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

I think the proper construction is: "any Thing in [the Constitution or Laws of any State] to the Contrary notwithstanding.", which, expanded to clarity would read "in the Constitution of any State or the Laws of any State". The intent was that individual states could not nullify treaties, either through their state constitutions or their state laws.

But the missing words "of any State" following "the Constitution" allows another construction, i.e., "any Thing [in the Constitution] or [Laws of any State] to the Contrary notwithstanding.", making any Thing refer to BOTH the Federal Constitution and to State laws.

I'm sure Obama and all of his followers prefer #2. And, given the ambiguity of the language, there may be no choice if the thing is pressed than to fight it out.

How bad do you think it's gonna be?

Pretty goddam bad. Probably all the other Families countries will line up against us. That's all right. These things gotta happen every five years or so, ten years. Helps to get rid of the bad blood. Been ten years since the last one. You know, you gotta stop them at the beginning. Like they should have stopped Hitler at Munich, they should never let him get away with that, they was just asking for trouble.

[devistate one four]

Excellent!

It does show our lack of attention to the fed is costing us every day.

[SuperLuminal]

Wow! Just like taking castor oil....when I was a kid...Shows you how old I am...

No hope....No change...The experiment is over....

[Carry_Okie]

Don't know if you saw this.

[Carry_Okie]

Don’t know if you saw this and forgot to ping you. Sorry.

[CounterCounterCulture]

Thanks Mark. I’ve shared this with some of my friends.