The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Teresa Heilevang on November 21, 2008, 02:07:26 PM
-
Just heard on Fox News...
Hillary Clinton accepts Secy of State that Obama has offered her.
Frickin" shocker...... NOT!
Crap.............We are going to be smothered by the damned Demos'. >:( >:( >:(
-
:-[
Seriously!? Ugh. Who can imagine what will happen when this administration takes over?
-
The empty suit picks the empty pantsuit...... Those with foreign policy experience (and gun owners) need not apply!
-
(http://www.anniemayhem.com/blog%20pics/HillaryTank.jpg)
-
We aim to please , so you aim too please.
-
My understanding is that the Sec. of State will make the appointments to the UN Small Arms Conf. That means a John Bolton is NOT going to stand up for American rights.
Remember that a UN Treaty trumps the US Constitution. So an easy way to side step all the nasty 2A stuff is to sign a radical left anti-gun treaty. Then it's all over in an instant. The 2A becomes history. I bet that only a few Americans or gun owners will even be aware of what happens until too late.
-
My understanding is that the Sec. of State will make the appointments to the UN Small Arms Conf. That means a John Bolton is NOT going to stand up for American rights.
Remember that a UN Treaty trumps the US Constitution. So an easy way to side step all the nasty 2A stuff is to sign a radical left anti-gun treaty. Then it's all over in an instant. The 2A becomes history. I bet that only a few Americans or gun owners will even be aware of what happens until too late.
That is not true. A Treaty doesn't trump the Constitution. Any Treaty must be ratified by Congress and if not ratified or passed are not enforcable. If ratified local laws, which the Constituition is the basis, still apply.
-
My understanding is that the Sec. of State will make the appointments to the UN Small Arms Conf. That means a John Bolton is NOT going to stand up for American rights.
Remember that a UN Treaty trumps the US Constitution. So an easy way to side step all the nasty 2A stuff is to sign a radical left anti-gun treaty. Then it's all over in an instant. The 2A becomes history. I bet that only a few Americans or gun owners will even be aware of what happens until too late.
Where is this stated in the Constitution? Article VI says that treaties are Part of the supreme law of the land but it does not state that a treaty can over ride constitutional guarantees like the 2A.
-
Geeze I didn't mean to set off a firestorm...First I am not a lawyer but I have read lawyers that say such. I am clipping the following from a UCLA prof who summarizes the argument. (I believe he has worked with Dave Kopel at the NRA)..In any case International law (treaties) certainly can shape US legal matters.
************************************************************************
http://volokh.com/2003_09_28_volokh_archive.html#106519175194385361
[Eugene Volokh, 10/3/2003 07:35:51 AM]
Signing treaties may erode the Bill of Rights: American decisions to sign on to international treaties may erode the protections of the Bill of Rights, for instance the First Amendment. Yes, the Supreme Court has supposedly said otherwise, in Reid v. Covert (1957): "[N]o agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the [federal government] which is free from the restraints of the Constitution" (speaking of the Bill of Rights). But it turns out that this supremacy of the Bill of Rights really isn't that strong: The President and the Senate can, in the long run, "insinuat[e] international law" that would create "a partial displacement of constitutional hegemony" (for instance, with "an international norm against hate speech . . . supply[ing] a basis for prohibiting it, the First Amendment notwithstanding"). "In the short term," international norms would and should be "relevan[t] . . . in domestic constitutional interpretation." But "In the long run, it may point to the Constitution's more complete subordination."
These quotes are not from some anti-internationalist "The U.N. is coming to take away our liberties" conservatives. They are from a recent article by Prof. Peter Spiro, one of the leading American international law scholars; the article, called Treaties, International Law, and Constitutional Rights, was published in the Stanford Law Review, which is generally seen as one of the top 3 legal journals in the country.
Prof. Spiro is both defending the notion that treaties should be able to trump constitutional rights -- "If some constitutional norms are more appropriately set at the international level" (and he believes they are), "that should justify a treaty power that, in some cases, overcomes even the Bill of Rights" -- and predicting that treaties will over time do so. Courts, he acknowledges, would try to "maintain[] the formal hegemony of the domestic constitution," but "this formal hegemony may disguise a loss of domestic constitutional autonomy over the long run." "Constitutional rights 'adjusted' by treaty norms are changed by them. The Constitution is read to conform with the treaty."
Of course, some people may be quite happy about this: They might well conclude that parts of the Bill of Rights should be superseded by "international" norms. They may think the international lawmaking community (mostly, I suspect, composed of European legal and political elites, plus of course those segments of American legal and political elites that are involved in this field) will indeed reach better results than those provided for by the current understanding of the U.S. Constitution.
But those of us who disagree should vigilantly watch for, and resist, the "displacement of constitutional hegemony" that the article welcomes. We should insist that the President and the Senate consistently stress in all the treaties they sign and ratify that our agreement to the treaty is constrained by our Constitution, and that the treaty should be read to conform to the Constitution, and not the other way around. We should criticize judges who rely on international norms in interpreting American constitutional provisions (in this respect, reading Prof. Spiro's article has led me to reconsider some of my views in this post, and to view with much more alarm reliance on international law in American constitutional interpretation). And we should assiduously publicize the ways in which international rules are, in our view, worse than ours, for instance to show that foreign bans on "hate speech" actually end up banning (as American First Amendment thinking would have suggested) a good deal of speech that deserves to be protected (see, for instance, this post by David Bernstein).
Our Constitution is far from perfect, both as written and as interpreted. I think courts should indeed change their views on many issues, and people should try to press courts to do so. But this should be our decision as Americans. We should not cede our control over our constitutional rights to international bodies, international professional elites, or even to our own President and Senate.
In any event, that's just my opinion. Read the Stanford Law Review article, which is fortunately quite readable and not terribly long (30 law review pages) for a different view.
********************************************************************
You can also check out Dave Kopel's article here on the UN vs. US rights. As you can see there is a lively discussion on this topic. That is why the appointment of US judges and SCOTUS judges is so important. They will determine if international law is used in the interpretation of our rights.
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/Foreign/UN-To-World.htm
-
I think it's time for a few well placed ..... to fix this problem.!!!!!
-
Geeze I didn't mean to set off a firestorm...First I am not a lawyer but I have read lawyers that say such. I am clipping the following from a UCLA prof who summarizes the argument. (I believe he has worked with Dave Kopel at the NRA)..In any case International law (treaties) certainly can shape US legal matters.
You can also check out Dave Kopel's article here on the UN vs. US rights. As you can see there is a lively discussion on this topic. That is why the appointment of US judges and SCOTUS judges is so important. They will determine if international law is used in the interpretation of our rights.
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/Foreign/UN-To-World.htm
I believe a recent (within the past 5 years) SCOTUS decision in a non-firearm related case stated that the US Constitution is still the supreme law of the land. So 100 traitor can't vote our rights away so easily. But I don't have access to Westlaw anymore and can't check my facts- damn it!
Anyway, thanks for the great information!
-
1776,
Wasn't jumping down your throat. I have heard this before but it always seemed based on a 'nuanced' reading of the constitution.
-
Haz I still love you guys.. ;D
But seriously this whole situation looks to be shaping up as the perfect storm to me. I am really worried about this country. Four years is enough time for these dim wits to screw up a dozen different social/cultural areas. It will take 30 or 40 years to unwind their damage if ever.
Let me use the following analogy. Just like the economy hit a tipping point in September and we are seeing it in free fall now. We may hit a political tipping point soon also. Things that we thought would be decades away may happen overnight. That makes me real sad. It also makes me very scared.
-
How many treaties were signed in Northern Ireland, or with the American Indians ? Treaties are only as good as the enforcement, and if the "enforcers" keep getting shot......
-
Hmmm....I don't know.....I think 1776 may be on to something.
Here's a link to a story done by NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89100044
Notice that the majority decision (by J. Roberts) stated that treaties are self-executing if they are explicitly stated, OR if there are domestic laws that say they are self-executing.
-
I'm waiting for the pictures of the late night candlelit supper meeting between her and Ms. Peters talking about "gun control." That oughta cure my porn addiction in one look :o
-
I think the oath of a military officer talks about protecting the Constitution and obeying the lawfulorders of those appointed over you. Thanks to the Nuremberg trials and other precedents orders need to be lawful and the officer needs to be sure they are before carrying them out. I know that I would refuse to carry out an unlawful order that does not support and protect the Constitution. Duty, Honor, Country.
-
I think the oath of a military officer talks about protecting the Constitution and obeying the lawfulorders of those appointed over you. Thanks to the Nuremberg trials and other precedents orders need to be lawful and the officer needs to be sure they are before carrying them out. I know that I would refuse to carry out an unlawful order that does not support and protect the Constitution. Duty, Honor, Country.
Sadly :'( , Foreign concepts to the left in this country.
-
UN trumps the Constitution? I think not. US military assigned to the UN are required to disavow the oath that they swore to 'protect and defend the constitution from all threats foreign and domestic'. Soldiers have been court-martialed for refusing to do so when ordered to UN service. Unfairly IMHO, as it is in my mind an immoral order.
-
UN trumps the Constitution? I think not. US military assigned to the UN are required to disavow the oath that they swore to 'protect and defend the constitution from all threats foreign and domestic'. Soldiers have been court-martialed for refusing to do so when ordered to UN service. Unfairly IMHO, as it is in my mind an immoral order.
I'd drop the "IMHO" and just state that it is a piece of crap !!!
We are not one world state ... yet. I know that there are many that want it that way, but the United Nations is just an organizations of nations. The U.N. is not a governing force, and if they want to over step their bounds we might want to use that big building in New York for training purposes with rookie pilots.
This is BS, and I would love to see these soldiers tell their side of the story, and let someone explain how they were "wrong."
-
Where is this stated in the Constitution? Article VI says that treaties are Part of the supreme law of the land but it does not state that a treaty can over ride constitutional guarantees like the 2A.
Article 2 Section 2
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
-
Article 2 Section 2
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
Would a treaty be any different than any legislation passed and subject to Constitutionality?
-
Would a treaty be any different than any legislation passed and subject to Constitutionality?
Nope. What would happen if a treaty was approved to ship your children to Chile to stomp grapes in return for lower cost wine?
-
Nope. What would happen if a treaty was approved to ship your children to Chile to stomp grapes in return for lower cost wine?
That's what I'm hoping for - That we could count on our Constitution to protect us from liberals acting on the world stage. However, why does this protection not go to the American troops that refuse to renounce their oath to protect the Constitution when assigned to the U.N.?
I fear that the "common sense" regulations that BHO wants will be slipped in the kool-aid and pushed on U.S. Citizens through things like the U.N.
-
And to further irritate and annoy you, the UN has for year tried to get our Federally protected areas AND resources placed under UN auspices. The Grand Canyon belongs to the world after all. It just falls within our borders. Resources? The US should make them available to anyone that wants them.
The UN is nothing but a debating society, with most members dictatorships, socialists or despots. I personally fail to see the difference, or why we should even consider this organization as a platform for true progress.
-
Nope. What would happen if a treaty was approved to ship your children to Chile to stomp grapes in return for lower cost wine?
Treaties can be reviewed by scotus to determine if they are lawful.
The Constitution states in Article III:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority....In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
-
UPDATE: It is unconstitutional for Hillary to be appointed -- not like that will stop Barack O from doing anything.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/26/would-appointing-hillary-violate-the-constitution/
If President-elect Barack Obama nominates Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state, many legal scholars believe it would be the former law professor’s first violation of the Constitution as president.
Why? Because the Constitution forbids the appointment of members of Congress to administration jobs if the salary of the job they’d take was raised while they were in Congress. (Article I, Section 6: “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office … the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.” Emoluments meaning salaries and benefits.)
However, Obama would be far from the first President to run afoul of this restriction. Nixon appointed William Saxbe to be Attorney General under similar circumstance, while Jimmy Carter appointed Ed Muskie to the same position Hillary will fill. Her husband appointed Lloyd Bentsen to run Treasury in the last such instance. No one ever proposed impeachment or a disqualification for these appointments, all of whom took their offices without much controversy at all.
-
Letter time followed by lawsuit if it happens. Unless someone has a sliver bullet?