U.N. Threatening to Trump U.S. Constitution

World Net Daily ^ | December 26, 2006 | Olivia St. John

[traviskicks]

Abram; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; Allosaurs_r_us; Americanwolf; Americanwolfsbrother; Annie03; Baby Bear; balrog666; bamahead; bassmaner; beckysueb; Bernard; BlackbirdSST; blackeagle; Brian328i; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; Capitalism2003; Caramelgal; CT-Freeper; CSM; Da Bilge Troll; dale3fan; Da_Shrimp; dAnconia; dcwusmc; DaoPian; DemWatch; duznshwrnkd; Eagle Eye; Element187; elkfersupper; ellery; Esther Ruth; ex-Texan; fanfan; Filo; Freedom_no_exceptions; freepatriot32; gdobbs18; George_Bailey; getsoutalive;gnarledmaw; Greenback_dollar; GSWarrior; imfleck; JeffAtlanta; jess35; jfreif; jimt; jmc813; JTN; kcar; KevinDavis; King of Florida; korn; krshnbrn; ksen; KurtZ; Lady Jag; LambSlave; lesser_satan; LibertarianInExile; libertarianmom; lrb111; I_dmc; M203M4; mcar; mhking; MinnesotaLibertarian; Mortikhi; mosquitobite; MRMEAN; muggs; mugs99; NCSteve; ndt; NJ Freeper; NoCurrentFreeperByThatName; oilspot; pbmaltzman; phantomworker; proud_yank; rasblue; ravinson; Remember_Salamis; Rob_DSM; rwh; salo; SamFromLivingston; SandfleaCSC; schaketo; Semaphore Heathcliffe; sheltonmac; SittinYonder; Small-L;SonofLiberty1; SoVaDPJ; stevieboy; StoneColdGOP; Supernatural; TDC1000; The Great Yazoo; The Shootist; ThinkFreedom; Thirteen_bravo; Tired of Taxes; traviskicks; Tristram Shandy; twinzmommy; Types_with_Fist; Turbopilot; txnativegop; UncleDick;utahguy; Utmost Certainty; ValenB4; Vring; vrwc0915; winston2; weps4ret; Xenalyte; Christian Cage; Borders.Language.Beer.; UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide; gondramB; rev.pogo; Celtjew Libertarian ;Rightwing; Canuck; postaldave; LibertarianSchmoe; xpertskir;cryptomc,oblomov; freedom moose; inneroutlaw; jackieaxe; LurkedLongEnough; Hydroshock; 383rr;seancdx; DarkMaterials; meandog; jas3; monkfan;stratous ;HayekRocks; LongsforReagan; kool;FroedrickVonFreepenstein ;Dave in Eugene of all places; rottweiller_inc; fnord; slick8790; trashcanbred; iowamomforfreedom; DGray; Unknown Pundit; Bokababe; monday; zeugma; Paradox; Fan of Fiat; Eric Blair 2084; Ghengis; brooklyn dave; jjm2111; Sherri-D; voletti; Rodney King





Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[traviskicks]

whoops, sorry i didn't mean to post the entire list there, I had to do some creative copying and pasting cuz im at a public (blech) library...

[sauropod]

review

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Whether people believe it or not, we are seeing in our days the final scenes of what the Bible and the book of Revelations foretold.

[Archon of the East]

Thanks for the links its always good to have more than common sense when arguing with those who are so ignorant.

The ground work is being set up for total loss of any Constitutional Rights our Fathers once had and has been for some time. I honestly believe it began with earnest during FDR's presidency.The major stumbling block for the Globalist the Internationale has always been and God willing will always be the "American" value. Freedom of the individual over the collective good for society which eliminates all real freedom.

[Eastbound]

The supreme law trumps anything any state judge has to say, any Thing in any state constitution or laws of any state which are contrary.

The 'constitution' which you have accented in red refers to constitutions of the individual states. It is not referring to itself, the federal constitution. Let's start with that. Is that your understanding?

Concerning any treaty, as already discussed, congress can pass no law that is not in pursuance to the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights, regardless of treaty provisions. Treaties are only effective if they they are based in law and can be enforced. Any treaty law that is passed must meet the 'pursuancy' test before it can be enforced. That's why we have the supreme court -- to determine the 'pursuancy of a law.

Naturally, it would be far better if Congress could have the question of constitutionality settled before a law was passed, but that would put most of the lawyers in the country out of work. ;<

To re-iterate, nothing trumps the supreme law. Further laws enacted can become part of the supreme law, but only if those laws are in pursuance to the supreme law to begin with -- do not abrogate or replace, are in harmony with.

I'll admit that isn't the way things have been working since congress decided how to circumvent and mis-interpret Article VI, para 2 with the Bird Kill act of 1918, and other bad law since. But someday we'll get it all straight again. Not to worry.

I'm not speaking against treaties. Many are absolutely necessary.

[Eastbound]

Forgot to correct your quote in red. It's not, 'anything.' It's 'any Thing.'

[fanfan]

LOL! Thanks for the pings, Travis.

Happy New Year!

[Eastbound]

"What, I might ask, would you deign that reason to be? "

Not sure exactly what it is you are referring to, Chances are. Are you saying that the word, 'constitution,' that you have highlighted in red is referring to the federal constitution?

[tioga]

Interesting, Germany is having the same problems we have here. Difference is that Americans will never stand for this.

[M Kehoe]

Olivia, don't let your heart be troubled. U.N. diplomats, as well as Supreme Court justices are only effective if they can come and go as they please.

Odd how that works...

5.56mm

[antisocial]

"Your position is that what the SC rules, constitutional or otherwise, is correct by virtue of their having ruled so? "

No, but our illustrious leaders seem to feel that way, and as long as they accept the BS of the supreme court, we all have to by default. (or accept the consequences)

[Bokababe]

"Treaties are NEVER supreme over the Constitution."

True. However, to some extent, the "constitutionalty of it", is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. It wouldn't be the first time that the Supreme Court would be contorting the Consitution into something unrecognizable. But if they tried it with the home-schooling issue, I think that there would be a revolution in this country.

On the other hand, while I agree that the Democrats suck, if this is a partisan, tempest-in-a-teapot, fear-mongering attempt by a Republican just to drum up votes for the Republicans, then that sucks just as badly.

[Jack Black]

The supremacy clause of the Constitution means that any foreign treaty can trump Constitutional guarantees.We've had endless debates on this interpretation. I will summarize them by saying not everyone agrees with the viewpoint above, and they have some very coherent arguments.

[Jack Black]

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; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

What this says it that the Federal Constitution and legitimately ratified treaties trump State Constitutions and laws.

I think a lot of people these days don't understand correct English construction, (or perhaps the English language has been so dumbed down that things like clauses are not understood by a lot of readers).

[arthurus]

Your take is not an SC take. It has been there before. And it wouldn't matter. If they are equal then it is up to a toss of the coin on the Court. In the matter of equal stature then the latest would trump. It would take an Amendment to turn it around and that would take years and is not even close to likely to happen because the same Senate that ratifies the treaty would have to pass an Amendment by 2/3 before it goes to the states for 3/4. Or the country can wait for a more favorable Congress and many years of fait accompli. That is all why the Senate does not easily ratify treaties that might just conflict with terms of the Constitution.