Posted on 05/04/2009 8:48:58 PM PDT by TheDailyChange
By Vincent Gioia Source: RightSideNews.com
“The Constitution contains one glaring error which enables opponents of freedom, liberty and individual rights to impose their philosophy on all of us; this mistake is in the constitutional language that makes treaties entered into by the United States the supreme law of the land; overruling all other federal and state laws and judicial decisions to the contrary.”
“The problem and grievous mistake is what is written in Article VI which states in part:”
“This Constitution and the Laws of the United States 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 the Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
“In other words, all provisions in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, and all state laws can be obliterated in one fell swoop by a treaty signed by the president and approved by two thirds of the senate. With a president like Obama and an essentially veto-proof senate (including the renegade Republicans who have already demonstrated disregard of the Constitution) treaties formulated by the United Nations in direct opposition to our constitutional rights can become de facto and de jure amendments to the Constitution."
“The Constitution contains one glaring error which enables opponents of freedom, liberty and individual rights to impose their philosophy on all of us; this mistake is in the constitutional language that makes treaties entered into by the United States the supreme law of the land; overruling all other federal and state laws and judicial decisions to the contrary.”
“The problem and grievous mistake is what is written in Article VI which states in part:”
“This Constitution and the Laws of the United States 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 the Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
“In other words, all provisions in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, and all state laws can be obliterated in one fell swoop by a treaty signed by the president and approved by two thirds of the senate. With a president like Obama and an essentially veto-proof senate (including the renegade Republicans who have already demonstrated disregard of the Constitution) treaties formulated by the United Nations in direct opposition to our constitutional rights can become de facto and de jure amendments to the Constitution."
I would love to hear Mark Levin’s take on this.
Yeah, just try all that lefties, we’ll be waiting right here when you come waving that piece of paper. It’ll make for a nice target.
Wrong, free traitors, because there are limits to the treaties that can be made. Arm your compounds up all you like, because we’ll still kick your heinies for having your politicians to make anti-American treaties.
“I was in Colorado, and I knew people who had 200, 300 guns. And they’d stash them in various hidden places around their compound. This wasn’t all that uncommon out west.” —Steve Forbes, and he obviously wasn’t talking about us peasants.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/23/guns-ammunition-tasers-intelligent-investing-obama.html
Article 1 Section 8:
General Welfare Clause
Commerce Clause
Necessary and Proper Clause
Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment.
There's alot of liberty the scoundrels in Congress take with just these 4.
If the illegal foreign slave labor around those compounds is used for mercenary “security,” it will make for some mighty strange fruit on those Galt trees, indeed. ;-)
Treaties as law:
As a matter of domestic law, treaties – like statutes – must meet the requirements of the Constitution; no treaty provision may have force of law in the United States if it conflicts with the Constitution. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). Thus, the United States is unable to accept a treaty obligation which limits constitutionally protected rights, as in the case of Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which restricts the freedom of speech and association guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Consequently, when deliberating on ratification of a treaty concerning the rights of individuals, Congress must give careful consideration to the specific provisions of the treaty and to the question of consistency with existing State and federal law, both constitutional and statutory. Where treaty provisions conflict with the Constitution, the United States makes reservations to them simply because neither the President nor Congress has the power to override the Constitution. In some cases, it has been considered necessary for the United States to state its understanding of a particular provision or obligation in a treaty, or to make a declaration as to how it intends to apply that provision or meet that obligation.
All the more reason why a Supreme Court Justice who seeks international law to base a ruling is just WRONG!
Well, if that happens to the point where the Bill of Rights gets a frontal assault and wiped out by a foreign treaty, we string up all the senators who vote for it for treason and dissolve the country, and all the states who still want to be under our Constitution as it is (save for an amended article that does NOT place treaties at the same level of the Constitution), we reform with those states and if the states who don’t want to be under such a constitution threaten us, we take them out.
Obama and the liberal dems are going to push this country to the breaking point. I am grateful for every normal day I live.
Plus we need to revert to senators being appointed either by state legislatures or the governors again, as opposed to direct election by the people. If we went by governors, 24 states have republicans, we’d have 48 seats at the current moment. How many RINOs is always a question but we’d be able to handle 1 or 2 better if our numbers were bigger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricker_Amendment
The Bricker Amendment is the collective name of a series of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution considered by the United States Senate in the 1950s. These amendments would have placed restrictions on the scope and ratification of treaties and executive agreements entered into by the United States and are named for their sponsor, Senator John W. Bricker of Ohio, a conservative Republican.
Non-interventionism, the view that the United States should not become embroiled in foreign conflicts and world politics, has always been an element in American politics but was especially strong in the years following World War I. American entry into World War II temporarily suppressed non-interventionist sentiments, but they returned in the post-war years in response to America’s new international role, particularly as a reaction to the new United Nations and its affiliated international organizations. Some feared the loss of American sovereignty to these transnational agencies, because of the Soviet Union’s role in the spread of international Communism and the Cold War.
Frank E. Holman, president of the American Bar Association (ABA), called attention to state and Federal court decisions, notably Missouri v. Holland, which he claimed could give international treaties and agreements precedence over the United States Constitution and could be used by foreigners to threaten American liberties. Senator Bricker was influenced by the ABA’s work and first introduced a constitutional amendment in 1951. With substantial popular support and the election of a Republican President and Congress in the elections of 1952, Bricker’s plan seemed destined to be sent to the individual states for ratification. The best-known version of the Bricker Amendment, considered by the Senate in 1953–54, declared that no treaty could be made by the United States that conflicted with the Constitution, was self-executing without the passage of separate enabling legislation through Congress, or which granted Congress legislative powers beyond those specified in the Constitution. It also limited the president’s power to enter into executive agreements with foreign powers.
Bricker’s proposal attracted broad bipartisan support and was a focal point of intra-party conflict between the administration of president Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Old Right faction of conservative Republican senators. Despite the initial support, the Bricker Amendment was blocked through the intervention of President Eisenhower and failed in the Senate by a single vote in 1954. Three years later the United States Supreme Court explicitly ruled in Reid v. Covert that the Bill of Rights cannot be abrogated by agreements with foreign powers and that such agreements cannot extend the powers of Congress beyond those permitted by the Constitution.[1] Nevertheless, Senator Bricker’s ideas still have supporters, and new versions of his amendment have been reintroduced in Congress periodically.
If in fact these weaknesses are there, then there really is only one solution: Secession
(Well’ they may have but, daggummit, don't encourage them!
That would be when a cowardly people ignore the 2nd amendment and NOT revolt when the government nationalizes the schools, health care, the banks and the auto industry.. and taxes them to death..
>>[ “The U.S. Constitution has one big flaw” ]
>
>That would be when a cowardly people ignore the 2nd amendment and NOT revolt when the government nationalizes the schools, health care, the banks and the auto industry.. and taxes them to death..
I think you are right; a right unused is a right abused.
“The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once”.
Judge Alex Kozinsky
once obama gets his two SC justices into the supreme court, what is stopping him from pushing this treaty through?
“once obama gets his two SC justices into the supreme court, what is stopping him from pushing this treaty through?
“
Nothing. The court has stomped the Constitution several times in these past few years so the court blaming a treaty is perfectly reasonable to expect.
Arm up, they are!
PING FOR HOME PAGE!
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.