Posted on 08/19/2013 9:07:35 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Congress, nor the President, have any authority to sign-away any Rights of We the People.
If they think the U.N. is the end all, they WILL have another thing coming.
*NSA JBTs. Kiss my ass*
more like WON, not one.
How many times are you guys going to post this “sky is falling” horsehockey?
Nobama CAN NOT put this into US law without 2/3 of the Senate and no one thinks that is going to happen.
Focus on something more realistic, there is lots to be worried about and work against from nobama and the libs, just not THIS.
Barky can sign that treaty all day long but it won’t ever get ratified.
Sure you will because Obama IS your king.
It would disgust anyone else to bow to want he wants but you have no problem with it.
Seriously, are you THAT dense that you came away from my posts with that? Either dense or a troll simply looking for a fight; either way, you'll not get a rise out of me.
Breathlessly awaiting your next profound musings; please.
Lets remember a couple of things.
First, while an administration can make some limited policy decisions that are within its normal Constitutional scope/powers (for example placing limits on imports/exports to the extent the Executive Branch is permitted/delegated to do so) once a treaty has been signed, the treaty does not go into effect until the US Senate properly ratifies it.
Second, even if a treaty is ratified, it still cannot override or circumvent the Constitution. This requires an Amendment or a Constitutional Convention.
So having said that, the only way that Obama uses this “signed” (but unratified) treaty to seriously usurp gun rights (as in full-up registration, confiscation, etc) is through blatantly unconstitutional means. No treaty, signed/unsigned, ratified/unratified - whether this particular one or any other - conveys to ANY President/Administration that ability.
Live with it, they are your words.
Man, you are a one note song aren’t you? Part of proper debate is to not to talk down to your opponent, to denigrate them. You make it very hard.
I am going to step through this, very simply for you. My use of “King obama” was derogatory. I really didn’t see the need to explain it, because even a simpleton could figure it out. You took offense and commanded me to not use the term. Yes, commanded me, like some forum Nazi. I then went on to explain how the term was derogatory. You either completely missed my explanation, or chose to ignore it. I called you on it, saying you are either dense (too ignorant to understand the subtleties of the English language), or a troll (willful ignorant, and only spoiling for a fight). You then call me a liberal, and took my stance against you playing fourmn Nazi (I’ll use what ever term I wish) and tied it in to the use of “King obama” to some how come up with more proof of whatever it is you see in the world, and my part in it.
Two things stand out, at this point. First, I still can’t tell whether you are as dense as you seem, or you are a troll. I am positive that your response will shed more light on the matter. Secondly, I am really beginning to think you are projecting at this point. With the vehement demand that obama not be mocked, using disjointed logic to reach your conclusion about me, your objection to the use of descriptive labels on yourself, when you have no objection using them on your opponent and your amendment stance on the whole thing, it really does look like you are projecting your inner desires on to the outside world at this point.
You can let the truth out, you are among FRiends here. We won’t judge you...much.
PS - This has been enjoyable, I am looking forward to your response.
While saying this earlier you THAT dense that you came away from my posts with that? Either dense or a troll simply looking for a fight; either way, you'll not get a rise out of me. Breathlessly awaiting your next profound musings; please.
Flipper flopper, speak with fork tongue.
I didn't read past you first sentence but knowing it is from someone' who CANNOT handle being corrected - I'll leave you to your 'know it all unteachable self'.
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate.
The Senate could vote 100 to 0 in favor of the UN BS ... but it would lose in SCOTUS.
Thank you.
Now, if you want to see what I might have said had I truly been talking down to you, and not just being snarky, this is along the lines of what I would have posted:
"I have come to the conclusion that ARE are dumb***. Initially, you were too stupid to understand sarcasm, and a bossy SOB, to boot. Then, you were so full of yourself that you were incapable of recognizing that you had made a mistake. That is inspite of the fact that you had it spelled out to you in terms a 1st grader would understand. Instead you make up facts, slander, and point fingers; trying to hide the fact that you are wrong. Your response to my original post, and following ones have been so doltish and immature, that I really find it a wonder that you are able to even use a computer, let alone post the barley intellegent thoughts you have. My only suggestion at this point is that for you post signs around your abode reminding you to breath, lest you suffocate to death."
Now, I only posted the above as an educational tool; do you see the subtle difference between snarky and talking down to, cemosabe?:-)
Bonus points for being able to tell what 2nd debate no-no I just did is.
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.