Posted on 12/12/2014 9:32:07 PM PST by Cheerio
[ Because he thinks he can sneak this by us and create a precedent. Then the UN Small Arms Treaty will be deemed to be ratified by fiat on Christmas Eve. ]
All I want for Christmas is a blue helmet with a hole in it...
It is the Enforcement clause of the constitution.
Why did you post this? The article itself says the Supreme Court struck down this bogus crap last June.
Under what legal precept do you come to this ridiculous conclusion?
Do you think you're talking to a bunch of 5th graders, ignorant of the concept of sovereignty?
As mentioned elsewhere on this message board concerning the federal government’s power to negotiate treaties, please consider the following. Thomas Jefferson, undoubtedly based on his experience as vice president and therefore president of the Senate, and also the Supreme Court, have clarified the following limits concerning the federal government’s constitutional power to make treaties. Essentially, the feds cannot use that power as a back door to force citizens to comply with foreign laws that are based on powers which the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate.
“In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise.” —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
“Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.” — Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1812 .
And the Supreme Court has put it this way.
“2. Insofar as Art. 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for the military trial of civilian dependents accompanying the armed forces in foreign countries, it cannot be sustained as legislation which is “necessary and proper” to carry out obligations of the United States under international agreements made with those countries, since no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Reid v. Covert, 1956 .
Yep. That’s right.
The prisoners at Leavenworth at least had enough honor at one point in their lives to take an oath and at least attempt to live up to it. Even if later they made mistakes or were found wanting in some respects.
This piece of filth Holder has never taken an oath he’s even attempted to respect, and abused every office he’s held for either political or monetary gain.
FUEH!!
keyboard spew alert
Holder (and probably obama) seem to believe that the world should be subservient to the United Nations and a single dictator.
This is the textbook definition of both treason and malfeasance. Too bad no one cares.
Did Eric not swear to defend the Constitution of the US and not some foreign entity?
If he wants to understand anything that makes sense in this world; he needs to read a book “Inventing Freedom, How the English Speaking People Made the Modern World” by Daniel Hannan. This is one of the most remarkable books my husband and I have read. If you read one book this year or in your lifetime this is it. This man explains in all with facts to prove what he says and he goes back into past history t o modern times. I have never read a book quite like this; that puts everything into perspective.
Where in the Constitution does it specify a mechanism to yield to international authority?
He is a traitor hiding his scum acts behind international law and accusing the US constitution of antihumanism
Holder is a joke and doing a trick. His taking custody of international law and US constitution is a threat.
They always say they are on the side of the world by destroying America, dividing the US from the World.
Holder and Obama will not be satisfied until America gets nuked
He swore to destroy the world and take custody over it by bashing America.
If one breaks local laws, how can one say they are for international law. This is dictatorial hubris pretexts. They want to disarm everyone to rule and plunder the world, Mugabe style, trampling swines not content with destoying Zimbabwe. Menawhile institutionalized Corporate retadd RINOs go ohh ahh yes sir.
The most definitive decision was in 1957, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), the Court ruled most resoundingly that the Constitution supersedes ratified treaties. In the words of the majority: "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."
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.