Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Outrage Erupts Over Bush Demands in Murder Case [But GWB has no time for Campeon(sic) & Ramos!]
worldnetdaily.com ^ | October 10, 2007 | staff

Posted on 10/10/2007 7:53:30 AM PDT by kellynla

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-185 last
To: DungeonMaster
What next?

Wow.

Since this one was beyond my imagination, I shudder to think about what could be next. This makes too many conspiracy theories start to sound believable.

181 posted on 10/11/2007 7:41:22 PM PDT by newgeezer ("until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
Thus, treaties are not superior to the Constitution, but alongside the Constitution are the supreme law of the land. That is probably why a treaty must be ratified by 3/4 of the Senate (even more of a majority of the senate than required for a Constitutional amendment) in order to take effect.

Unfortunately, by Senate rules 3/4 of the Senators present are enough and it can even be ratified by a voice vote so there is NO record of who voted or how many even knew about it.

IOW not only can it be done by 3 senators on the floor plus one presiding at an odd hour of the day or night, but it has been. The Desertification Treaty (giving UN power over a little more of our land) was passed in this way back during the Clinton regime.

182 posted on 10/11/2007 8:01:04 PM PDT by Sal (My "good" Senator Kyl exposed himself as a Grand Betrayer, corrupt to the core!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat

The 10th amendment says whatever isn’t given the federal government is retained by the states or the people.

THe Constitution gives the federal government the power of treaty.

The constitution gives treaties power over all laws, second only to the constitution.

So if there is a valid treaty, properly ratified, it trumps state law.

If the states didn’t like it, they would instruct their senators to vote against the treaty.

Ooops, some IDIOTS took the senate away from the states, and gave it to the people of the states. Who were those idiots? Oh, it was the STATES, 75% of them, who did that to themselves.

Now we see the result. A Federal Government who no longer cares at all about states.

That rant aside, it’s stupid to be tied to a foreign court like this, I’m glad Bush has said we won’t be anymore but the next president apparently can put us right back.

But the absurd histrionics directed against the President for essentially fulfilling his executive branch obligations under treaty makes me sad. If Bush is wrong, the Supreme Court will likely rule against him. Otherwise I guess we’ll also be in a hysterical fit over them as well.

THe murders were brutal, and the guy deserves to die, but killing him won’t bring them back. He should have been dead years ago, our system is too slow, but having gone this long on death row, if he spends the rest of his life there it’s not like he “got away” with anything.

I hope the court rules against Bush. But if it doesn’t, I’m not going to grab a weapon and try to overthrow the government.


183 posted on 10/12/2007 6:43:29 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Treaties cannot trump state laws because that would mean that treaties trump the constitution because the constitution gives states the power. So, if treaties trump state laws then, then the tenth is of no effect. Treaties cannot trump the tenth otherwise the world court rules us. Where a treaty and the constitution (the 10th in this case) conflict the supreme court is obligated to rule for the state. If they do not, the amendments are as dead as door nails.


184 posted on 10/12/2007 8:55:25 AM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat
Actually, they can trump most state laws, because the constitution doesn't really give much protection to states, except in that it doesn't grant powers to the Federal government.

Treaties are considered just under the constitution, so while you couldn't use a treaty to override a constitutional protection for the states, you can do a lot of harm to states rights.

Realise that the federal government could legislate away the death penalty for the states, just as the federal govenrment has prohibited states from decriminalizing marijuana.

Whether a treaty could trump a state death case, that's an interesting constitutional question, one that will be decided by the Supreme Court now.

This power of treaty is why treaties required 2/3rd approval of the senate, which was the representatives of the states.

Here's the language of treaties, it's pretty powerful:

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

185 posted on 10/12/2007 9:37:07 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-185 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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