yeah??? then get some... 
Posted on 04/19/2011 3:04:46 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
Furthermore, the Constitution says treaties overrule US LAW, not the Constitution.
I would hate to be the guy that gets sent door to door to collect all the guns. That might be a short career....red
I’ll bring al my guns and ammo to the kenyans destruction center. Indeed.
Try enforcing that in Africa or the Middle East.
Oh, that's too difficult? Then enforce it in the law-abiding US when the Supremes are 5-4 Democratic.
I think the thing I hate most about the Dems--and there's a lot to choose from--is the shameless politicization of the Courts and the DOJ under Clinton and O. They would love to have an SJC that would view the half-assed UN resolution of their choice as precedent.
A great weakness of our system is that once something ridiculous is accepted as legal precedent, it is incredibly difficult to unwind.
yeah??? then get some...
“...the Supremes are 5-4 Democratic.”
Uh, source, please?
Pity the poor "blue helmets" sent here to engage in "peacekeeping" operations. May they all have their personal affairs in order before they head this way.
The arrogant left just loves to keep smacking an already pissed off pit bull in the face, doesn’t it.
Well, they aren't right now. But it is my contention that if Obama stays in office, and one of the more conservative justices leaves, he'll appoint a politically motivated, Democratic party-line oriented replacement justice, and then the SJC will vote against the 2nd amendment. I believe I said "when..."
Clear?
Free citizens throughout history have had arms. Only slaves are prohibited from possessing arms.
“Furthermore, the Constitution says treaties overrule US LAW, not the Constitution.”
Well, he Constitution itself is law. What else would it be? Obviously, though, it wouldn’t let itself be superceded by international agreements, it being a fundamental document. Even if the Constitution were replaceable, it is not sovereign. The people are. We retain our rights, with or without law to protect us.
The Constitution.
All US law emanates from the Constitution, much in the same manner as all Commonlaw emanates from the Magna Carta.
“All US law emanates from the Constitution, much in the same manner as all Commonlaw emanates from the Magna Carta”
I strenuously dispute both points, as English and American law most definitely precedes said documents. Perhaps it is true that English constitutional law emanates from the Magna Carta, but common law goes back to time out of mind. Technically defined as predating 1189, or the start of Richard the Lionheart’s reign, “time immemorial” literally stretches all the way back to the Dark Ages of barbarian Germany. That’s how old English law is.
It may be permissible to say that all U.S. law emanates from the Constitution, as of course there was no U.S. before the Constitution. Anyway, the point is though you are free to define the Constitution as “the Constitution,” to the rest of us it is law (or a series of laws, if you will), just like the Magna Carta is law. I’m not sure why you’ve never come across this basic definition.
“...Well, they aren’t right now.”
Clear?
“It may be permissible to say that all U.S. law emanates from the Constitution, as of course there was no U.S. before the Constitution”
I hasten to add that this point is open to further interpretation. A host of laws created under the regime created by the Constition don’t pertain to the Constitution persay. I speak mainly of various judicial precedents, congressional statutes, executive acts, and administrative law, which are can be said to be extra-constitutional. Of course, the argument spins around to the fact that the Constitution empowered these agencies in the first place. Hence, even if they don’t follow the Constitution, whatever they do ultimately derives from the Constitution anyway. But I digress.
“Uh, source, please?”
“Clear?”
I don’t know what your problem is, Farnsworth. The original poster clearly said “Then enforce it [i.e. the global gun ban] in the law-abiding US when the Supremes are 5-4 Democratic.” Notice the word “when,” meaning “at such time as,” or somesuch formulation. I perceived the implication to be that SCOTUS wasn’t now majority liberal, but at some time in the future the UN could use it if it became so.
“which are can be said” = which can be said
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.