Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Eastbound
The question is: -- can there be law/treaties which are inconsistent with the constitution?
Could they by treaty take away our right to gun ownership? To petition against illegal immigration, etc?

"-- in Pursuance thereof --" is the operative phrase.
Any law or treaty that was repugnant to our Constitutions principles would be null & void. [see Marbury]

Eastbound wrote:
It's really that simple, but difficult for most to absorb. We have to be a nation of laws and not men, else we'll fail. But those laws have to be, as you point out, in pursuance to the Bill of Rights/Constitution, for the Constitution constructs the legal mechanism and contract for our elected officials to adhere to, to prevent infringement of both enumerated and non-enumerated rights of the individual.

Our failure to hold those elected officials to their constitutional oaths is the real problem, as I see it. It's a failure of our political 'two party' system. And FR is a perfect example of why that system is not working to restore our Constitution.

Even without the Second Amendment, the right to self-defense is so basic that only a tyrant would suppose it was not an non-enumerated right.

Many here think that States can ignore our RKBA's. Figure that.

152 posted on 06/19/2006 10:26:34 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]


To: tpaine
"Many here think that States can ignore our RKBA's. Figure that."

The people in those states are there own victims, not suing for a republican form of government. When the U.S. Constitution is ratified by any state, the state at that time agreed that there can be no thing in their laws or state constitutions or judges rulings that are repugnant to the supreme law of the land, which of course is the Bill of Rights/U.S. Constitution, which specifically protects and recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The U.S. Constitution recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms and it warns the federal government to not even think about infringing on that right. It is right there in front of their eyes, in black and white -- that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the people -- not the federal government or state governments.

It defies logic why the people would agree that the federal government cannot prevent you from the act of defending your life, and then turn right around and allow the state to prevent you from defending your life? Does not compute.

172 posted on 06/19/2006 11:32:04 AM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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