Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama May Place U.S. Under International Criminal Court
humanevents.com ^ | 02/10/2009 | Thomas P. Kilgannon

Posted on 02/16/2009 10:49:57 AM PST by shielagolden

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-214 next last
To: dbz77

What about chemistry?


81 posted on 02/16/2009 11:42:17 AM PST by unkus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: shielagolden

Omigosh, the man is an even bigger fool that I previously thought! He has done more to wreck this country in a few short weeks, and the Media claims that he “won”.


82 posted on 02/16/2009 11:43:35 AM PST by Purrcival (Proud to share my birthday with President Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero; shielagolden
Would this be constitutional?
It’s arguable, but I would say yes, for all practical purposes, unless there is a civil war. All he has to do is put through a treaty.

Arrrrgh! No disrespect indended to anyone, but good heaven's people, don't you remember recent history? Also, don't you ever read the finer points of the Constitution?

Once again, Bill Clinton signed the ICC treaty in the late 1990's. The Republican Senate did not ratify it, and when President Bush took office in 2001, he revoked Clinton's signature, effectively removing the U.S. as a signatory. All Obama has to do is sign the existing treaty and re-submit it to the Senate for ratification. This Senate WILL ratify it.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes ratified treaties the law of our land. There would be NOTHING unconstitutional in the ICC treaty if it was ratified by the Senate.

83 posted on 02/16/2009 11:43:46 AM PST by Wolfstar (Elections have thousands of consequences. Some minor, some major...and some that can kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: unkus

It comes in handy when making bombs.


84 posted on 02/16/2009 11:43:46 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

With pleasure.


85 posted on 02/16/2009 11:44:54 AM PST by unkus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

In the mind of the black supremacist Obama, US soldiers are only good for sacrificing their lives to save the lives of black Africans

______________
You got that right! o has an obsession about making blacks the superior race. He detest white people. he won’t release his medical records, wanna bet he’s been treated for mental problems?


86 posted on 02/16/2009 11:45:22 AM PST by mojitojoe (None are more hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: shielagolden

Omigosh, the man is an even bigger fool that I previously thought! He has done more to wreck this country in a few short weeks, and the Media claims that he “won”.


87 posted on 02/16/2009 11:45:47 AM PST by Purrcival (Proud to share my birthday with President Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dbz77

Bookmark


88 posted on 02/16/2009 11:45:50 AM PST by tapatio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

just one more thing for the next President to rescind.

___________________

LOl. When? In 4 years? 8 Years? After he has changed the Constitution to make him our new Fidel. OPEN YOUR EYES. Everything isn’t gonna be alright!


89 posted on 02/16/2009 11:47:55 AM PST by mojitojoe (None are more hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise; txnativegop
Yes, submitting Americans to the ICC is unconstitutional.

People, get this through your heads. If Obama re-signs the ICC treaty, and if the Senate ratifies it, the treaty becomes the law of our land. Don't believe me? Read the following:

United States Constitution, Article VI, para. 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.

90 posted on 02/16/2009 11:48:15 AM PST by Wolfstar (Elections have thousands of consequences. Some minor, some major...and some that can kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: KittenClaws

The Constitution means what We The People say it means.

The Constitution belongs to us, not to the courts, the feds, the congress or any other usurper.

___________________

AMEN! At least one person, you, still realizes this.


91 posted on 02/16/2009 11:50:30 AM PST by mojitojoe (None are more hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

That’s what I said.

You can argue that it’s against the SPIRIT of the Constitution and the Founders to subordinate our rights to outside authorities, but it would be strictly legal. And as I also said, you can bet that whatever it said in the treaty would be stretched further by liberal judges and politicians as time went by, which is what has happened with the Geneva Convention.

Where further issues might arise would be if the International Court passed measures that directly violated “inalienable” rights given in the Constitution, such as a ban on religious expression or freedom of speech. But that’s a worry for the future, and in any case we seem to be doing pretty well having those rights carved away slice by slice without any foreign help.


92 posted on 02/16/2009 11:51:18 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: shielagolden
You know, with the way our current President is firing off hellfire missiles from Predator drones (and killing people) in Afghanistan an and Pakistan, his name would certainly get on THE list for Americans to be tried for war crimes.

Aside from the most relevant reason why he shouldn't do this (would trigger a response in the US like this country hasn't seen since the civil war) he'd be really stupid to do this because the mob he creates would soon come for his head.

93 posted on 02/16/2009 11:51:23 AM PST by R0CK3T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rigelkentaurus
I understand what you are saying, but I have seen no evidence that we will arise and assert our constitutional rights.

Look at all of the violations of the Constitution have already been happening? The practical result is what I said, because the country will not step up and assert our rights over our governmenet. And the country will not arise over this either, as much as I wish we would...

Your points are well understood. But, I'm sure a tipping point will be reached. I'd like us to wake up in time to take advantage of it.

94 posted on 02/16/2009 11:52:01 AM PST by KittenClaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: rigelkentaurus
Look at all of the violations of the Constitution have already been happening

Enumerate/list please.

95 posted on 02/16/2009 11:52:33 AM PST by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

I certainly hope you are wrong. For the sake of the country, I hope you are wrong.


96 posted on 02/16/2009 11:53:25 AM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
Actually, the Constitution belongs to the states. It is their rules for how the federation they created would be run. If only the states could recapture the sense of their own power over the feds, but they're too busy sucking on the federal tit to do so.

With all due respect, that is the thinking that keeps The People from serving Cease and Desist orders upon a Tyrannical Government.

Sure, it belongs to the States, but it ultimately belongs to The People of those States.

97 posted on 02/16/2009 11:55:14 AM PST by KittenClaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
That’s what I said.

After prefacing your comment by saying it's "arguable" that the ICC treaty would be constitutional. It isn't arguable at all. If it's ratified by the senate, it's the law of the land. I get frustrated when I see posts like several on this thread that indicate too many conservatives don't know the plain language of the Constitution's finer points. How can conservatives preserve, protect and defend it if they don't know what it says?

98 posted on 02/16/2009 11:55:40 AM PST by Wolfstar (Elections have thousands of consequences. Some minor, some major...and some that can kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

The Constitution belongs to the states, and through them to us, the people.

Again, with all due respect...We the People ARE the States.


99 posted on 02/16/2009 11:56:33 AM PST by KittenClaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
AMEN! At least one person, you, still realizes this.

Two! :>)

100 posted on 02/16/2009 11:57:53 AM PST by KittenClaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-214 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson