|
Posted on 10/15/2009 6:04:37 PM PDT by Yadanuiat
If you get a chance, please stop by the FReepathon thread and give it a bump. If you haven’t donated something yet, please give it some thought...
Thanks!
Already done via the IMF.
people better pay attention
Another Senate fight?
God give speed to Leo Donofrio’s wings.
We need Quo Warrento NOW.
“Treaties are made to be broken” (Bismarck). If the US returns to sanity, a way will be found to ignore or undo this foolishness.
Learn the constitution first. Treaties must be ratified by the Senate. There is no way that many Senators will willfully become obvious domestic enemies to millions of armed veterans.
Treaties need to be approved by two-thirds of the senate.
That treaty is going nowhere.
OF course it is true. But real treaties must be passed by the Senate, I believe.
Still, there are enough idiots (leftists) in the US Senate it could be passed.
Gotta get in line with this one:
Stop Healthcare
Stop Tax and Trade
Stop this Globaloney “treaty”
We’ll see but I imagine it will be taken up by the alternative media...hopefully so.
And many reliable conservatives such as Mike Pence, and Senator Inhoffe will bring attention to it.
But, if they want, the Damnocrats have the votes to pass anything.
Another Senate fight?
|
.
. . . . Similar thread.
Would [Obama's potential illegitimacy as president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty that he does sign as president?
I would be very careful not to rely on things like that. Although there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii, my fear is it would be very difficult to prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii and therefore we might not be able to get anywhere with that.
Besides, once he’s signed that treaty, whether or not he signed it validly, once he’s signed it and ratified it – your Senate ratifies it – you’re bound by it.
>Learn the constitution first. Treaties must be ratified by the Senate. There is no way that many Senators will willfully become obvious domestic enemies to millions of armed veterans.
I wish the WOULD, as I’m of the opinion that there are domestic enemies that need shot. Furthermore, I hold in contempt the 11th Congress’s willful disregard of the Constitution (No Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto law; retroactive tax LAW targeting CEOs, for one), the fourth amendment, the fifth, the sixth, the ninth, the fourteenth (Charlie Rangle and Tim Geithner are treated just like everyone else when it comes to tax evasion/fraud, right?), and I think the 7th and 8th, but I’d have to re-read them to make sure I’m not mixing them up.
“There’s a storm brewing.”
“But, if they want, the Damnocrats have the votes to pass anything.”
Yes, and it all depends on what they believe is written in the treaty....because we all know they DON’T READ before passing these things. I doubt they’d even question anything that could put a negative light on Obama.
If they see it as being “for the greater good”, they’ll pass it.
If they cared, the Bonus Army would have gone back, reinforced and armed, after no more than a week. NFA would have been immediately repealed. The government wouldn't have tried GCA after hypothetically seeing those consequences.
In short, we'll all bend over and take it like everybody else has for far too long.
“”This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,
“... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’
“There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...
“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).
“In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”
Source: http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm
AMEN!
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.
