Did someone call for me?
Posted on 08/12/2006 10:30:50 AM PDT by wagglebee
"I don't buy this ... our Constitution trumps any U.N. treaty."
I am with you. Activist judges cannot enact law, and nobody has to follow illegal laws. Any person trying to enforce illegal laws is in violation of the law themselves.
I think that their WND) interpretation is the realistic one based on recent history, even though yours is the proper one based on facts and extremely uncommon common sense.
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
--George Washington, speech of Jan. 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14, 1790.
What they leave unsaid is:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
"-- which 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; ----
Only treaties made in "pursuance" of the goals [the legitimate authority] of the Constitution are valid. We have never given our legislators the authority to make treaties or laws that subvert our freedoms.
The HSLDA is hyping the issue.
I think that their WND) interpretation is the realistic one based on recent history,
Yep.. -- Unfortunately, far too many people believe that their 'realistic' opinion trumps our constitution.
even though yours is the proper one based on facts and extremely uncommon common sense.
Thanks.
Just so there is no confusion, I meant 'realistic' in that is likely how the court would rule, not that it would be right or even obeyed.
Long ago, I decided to do what was right, even if it weren't necessarily lawful.
What matters to a man walking down the street is what is enforced, whether it is lawful or not. So, in that sense, it doesn't matter what the law says, only what the government says. Think about the recent property rights decision in the SC. In the end, those people lost their homes even though it was the result of a clearly unconstitutional decision, even though they resisted.
We used to have a long tradition of ignoring unlawful laws. I think that has been indoctrinated out of most Americans by the government school system. Americans for the most part have been turned into a compliant herd. Most government educated Americans have no idea what the Constitution says, and too many of the ones that do don't care what it says.
Oh for God's sake! Consider the source! Worldnetdaily.com.
The Supreme Court just ruled that the Geneva Convention applies to terrorists even though it was never even presented to either the President or the Senate.
Activist Judges do not follow anything they don't want to.
Well as of today the U.S.S.C. hasn't ruled on this yet.
Yes, things are nuts out there.
That is of little comfort when you see who is on the court.
Here's another take on that Belgian case and what it could mean to us.
If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
Are you a homeschooler looking for advice from other homeschoolers? Visit our Free Republic Homeschoolers' Forum 2006-2007.
on please
"Yeah ... but still WND doesn't exactly have a stellar reputation. They tend to take the hysterical extreme route."
Unlike the more "fair and balanced" New York Slimes?
LOL
W
Did someone call for me?
This is a little too far out for me to believe especially since we haven't even signed onto this idiotic treaty.
I put you on the list.
I concur. Plus it's a moot point since Congress has not signed off on this treaty.
Our Constitution is a pact between the states and the federal government. All powers of the federal government were ceded to them by the states and those specific powers are listed in the U.S. Constitution. Any power the federal government does not have was retained by the states.
No treaty can give the federal government any additional power.
My understanding is that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that persons taking no active part in the hostilities are entitled to the minimal protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention if they are detained in the territory of a signatory nation (which Afghanistan is).
In this specific case, the detainee was a young Yemeni national named Salim Ahmed Hamdan who had worked as a driver and bodyguard for Osama bin Laden. He was not accused of directly participating in, or coordinating, any terrorist acts (though he was charged with "conspiracy to commit terrorism" because of his association with bin Laden -- which was a different issue addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the same ruling).
Because of that, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that he was entitled to the protection from Common Article 3(d). "The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the military tribunal created and convened by Bush's Executive branch to deal with the terrorists did not meet the requirement of a "regularly constituted court". But they added that if Congress voted to approve this special court, then that was just fine by them.
I think they are playing fast and loose with the Constitution and what it actually says. I read it to mean that the Constitution, federal law and federal treaties overrule state law. I am sure a legal mind can correct me and enlighten us.
Eastbound gave us an excellent constitutional answer..
I'm pinging FR's foremost majority rule 'states rightist' to give us the anti-constitutionalist's view.
paulsen wrote:
I concur.
Plus it's a moot point since Congress has not signed off on this treaty.
Our Constitution is a pact between the states and the federal government. All powers of the federal government were ceded to them by the states and those specific powers are listed in the U.S. Constitution. Any power the federal government does not have was retained by the states.
No treaty can give the federal government any additional power.
Our Constitution is a pact between the people in their states and the federal government. All powers of the federal government and of the States were ceded to them by the people and those powers are specified in the U.S. Constitution.
Any Constitutional power the federal government does not have, or power prohibited by the Constitution to the States, was retained by the states, or reserved to the people.
Nice answer paulsen. You seem to "concur", -- yet you fail to mention the powers retained by the people; -- or that you do not accept the fact that the first ten Amendments apply to the States as our supreme law, and that the rights in them are not to be infringed upon, -- by either fed, state, or local governments.
Very slick, but your basic anti-constitutional stance is still evident.
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.