I'm your huckleberry.
Posted on 06/15/2010 1:43:54 PM PDT by DebraAI
The new United Nations Treaty is being designed to disarm all citizens of every nation on Earth. The treaty will give all governments a free hand to do as they please. It is making headway in Washington D.C. and it is feared that President Obama may very well try to use the treaty to consolidate his power in America. The treaty specifics are now being negotiated and Obama has given the OK For the U.S. to be a part of the negotiations.
(Excerpt) Read more at usofearth.com ...
This won't be a war between the States, this will be a war against a foreign invader that's using or own federal government as a proxy.
I'm your huckleberry.
Wikipedia: “The Senate also has a role in the process of ratifying treaties. The Constitution provides that the President may only ratify a treaty if two-thirds of the senators vote to grant advice and consent. However, not all international agreements are considered treaties, and therefore do not require the Senate’s approval. Congress has passed laws authorizing the President to conclude executive agreements without action by the Senate. Similarly, the President may make congressional-executive agreements with the approval of a simple majority in each House of Congress, rather than a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Neither executive agreements nor congressional-executive agreements are mentioned in the Constitution, leading some to suggest that they unconstitutionally circumvent the treaty-ratification process. However, the validity of such agreements has been upheld by courts.”
“Treaties cannot violate the Constitution, even if ratified by whatever means. So long as we have the 5 justices that held for Heller, this is non-sense.”
FYI: Back-up for your statement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
“That is complete and utter nonsense,this isn’t the UK”
Successfully stopping the removal of any rights requires organization. Once someone tries to organize the resistance, there will be a Benedict Arnold that will tell the Feds. Next up, comes a Ruby Ridge, Waco, Ft. Davis, or Michigan militia episode. Never underestimate the power and tyranny of government to quash you and make you out as a seditionist with the complict State run media.
All that being said, the UN bull$h!t is going nowhere.
Great movie.
BULL SHIT!
Get with some like minded people who are more worried about losing their freedoms and saving this country than about being politically correct.
THEY WILL HAVE TO KILL ME.
Revolution?? WWIII and a good housecleaning is long overdue.
Buckeye by birth; Texan by choice. Moved to Texas when I turned 18 and never looked back.
Isn't it? In 2008 65 million people voted to commit national suicide. We shall see.
A significant percentage would turn over their guns, but nowhere near 95% IMHO.
That’s the fire that’s needed. Sadly, they will try to kill you and many gun owners will cheer. Some out of self loathing for having turned in their guns, and some because they never understood freedom in the first place.
Nope, no mechanism for the president alone. That is often mistakenly said. The reality is that under “international law” all that is needed is his signature. If he signs it,, other nations consider it legal. Other nations do not consider ratification to be needed.
But that does not override the requirement that it be ratified by the senate, before it is condidered the law of the land here in the USA.
The President can sign a Treaty but it has to be ratified by a 2/3 vote of the Senate to become effective and then becomes equal to highest law — not superior. Supreme Court can also rule on its application and what it takes precedent over.
Currently we are seeing administrative Executive Agreements outnumbering treaties at a pace of 20 to 1. These are less binding and can be abrogated by the next administraion.
As I said, irrespective of how a treaty is ratification, its ratification does not allow it to supersede the Constitution. The Court still enjoys and occasionally exercise judicial review over treaties, and would be willing to strike any treaty if it found a constitutional infirmity in the agreement.
Um....
he can try.
If the SHTF (economic collapse, higher unemployment, etc) there will people people who will wish you and your family harm.
Please prepare yourselves.
Read up on the economic collapse in Argentina.
Yes, but there is a difference. To end a filibuster, you need 3/5ths of all senators holding office at that time, whether or not they are all present at the time of the vote. So even if only 75 senators were there for the vote, they would still need 60 votes to end the filibuster.
On the other hand, the 2/3rds vote needed to override a veto or approve a treaty is based on the number of senators present and voting. So if only 75 senators were present, 50 votes would be enough to ratify it.
So the question becomes, could the Dems arrange a vote in such a way as to be assured that enough Repubs would be out of town to allow them to ratify it with the votes they have available?
Dont need no stinking revolution....51% is a majority, just kick the SOB out!
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.