Is anyone up to date on the battle of the 2nd Ammendment by the UN??

imported post

Treaty provisions can in fact over rule the US Constitution....

But the treaty must be specific and then ratified by the US Senate and signed by the President for it to have any effect.

A general treaty with the UN (even if they pass a resolution against handguns) does nothave any weight of law in the US.

If say the US, Canada and Mexico agreed, by international treaty, to elimnate the private possession of weapons, and that treaty was presented to the US Senate for ratification, and signed by the President.... then it's bye bye OC and everything else. It has the weight of law.

But since no law or treaty can abrogate unalienable (or natural) rights--we have the duty and moral high-ground to resist (by force if necessary) this treaty and its agents of enforcement.

If the government persists to deny us our rights, we have the duty to change (by force if necessary) those representatives who are abrogating our rights.

Coachroach politicans and LEO's on the front-line would disagree... but this is what happened in 1776.... and it could happen all over again.

S T

imported post

Takezo wrote:

SNIP [Cock]roach politicans and LEO's on the front-line would disagree...

Click to expand...

The real majority party in Congress?

As in, forget the camoflage provided by the common party labels, Dem. and Rep.

I like this method of identifying politicians much better than a party label. You see a truer picture.

Unfortunately, I think there are more cockroach politicians, than good guys.

Didn't Harry Reid just try to turn out the lights in Congress the other day?

imported post

Takezo wrote:

Treaty provisions can in fact over rule the US Constitution....

But the treaty must be specific and then ratified by the US Senate and signed by the President for it to have any effect.

A general treaty with the UN (even if they pass a resolution against handguns) does nothave any weight of law in the US.

If say the US, Canada and Mexico agreed, by international treaty, to elimnate the private possession of weapons, and that treaty was presented to the US Senate for ratification, and signed by the President.... then it's bye bye OC and everything else. It has the weight of law.

But since no law or treaty can abrogate unalienable (or natural) rights--we have the duty and moral high-ground to resist (by force if necessary) this treaty and its agents of enforcement.

If the government persists to deny us our rights, we have the duty to change (by force if necessary) those representatives who are abrogating our rights.

Coachroach politicans and LEO's on the front-line would disagree... but this is what happened in 1776.... and it could happen all over again.

S T

Click to expand...

WRONG!!! TRY AGAIN

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty"



Wanted to make sure it was big enough for you to read it.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Didn't Harry Reid just try to turn out the lights in Congress the other day?

Click to expand...

No, that was Nazi Pelosi, and she didn't try, she did it. She also had the cameras and microphones turned off. That was because about 75 Republicans were still there doing 5 minute speeches about everybody taking a 5 week vacation while the nation was in an energy crisis. She works like a dictator, if you don't say what she wants, then she doesn't want anyone to hear it. They stayed anyway and went on like everything was OK. They had a lot of visitors cheering for them today. The Reps. said if they don'tbring a vote on drilling in places that are off limits to the floor for a vote, they willshut down the government. Fiscal year ends September 31.

imported post

Takezo wrote:

Treaty provisions can in fact over rule the US Constitution....

Click to expand...

this ais absolutely not true. the constitution declares itself "teh supreme law of the land:

"...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..."

U.S. Constitution, article VI.

while treaties made under the authority of teh United States are considered part of that supreme law, they are only considered such as long as they are not contrary to the constitution or relevant state law. 2nd ammendment infringement is absolutely contrary to the constitution.

imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:

Takezo wrote:

Treaty provisions can in fact over rule the US Constitution....

Click to expand...

this ais absolutely not true. the constitution declares itself "teh supreme law of the land:

"...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..."

U.S. Constitution, article VI.

while treaties made under the authority of teh United States are considered part of that supreme law, they are only considered such as long as they are not contrary to the constitution or relevant state law. 2nd ammendment infringement is absolutely contrary to the constitution.

Click to expand...

Does this even apply to the clowns we have in DC now?

I can easily see a democrat president and congress selling out to the UN. Thankfully, we have alot of pro-gun democrats in the house, but that may change in November with this energy issue and Nancy thinking she can save the world by taking 5 weeks off.

imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:

Takezo wrote:

Treaty provisions can in fact over rule the US Constitution....

Click to expand...

this ais absolutely not true. the constitution declares itself "teh supreme law of the land:

"...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..."

U.S. Constitution, article VI.

while treaties made under the authority of teh United States are considered part of that supreme law, they are only considered such as long as they are not contrary to the constitution or relevant state law. 2nd ammendment infringement is absolutely contrary to the constitution.

Click to expand...

While you're right, your post isn't very clear. The bold portion of the text says "anything in the Constitution [...] notwithstanding. Meaning that it doesn't matter what the Constitution says, the treaty trumps it. The important part is what I left out, "of any State".

Treatises can trump any laws or even the constitution of any State, not the US Constitution. The US Constitution refers to itself as "this Constitution", as it did earlier. When it says "the Constitution or laws of any State" it is clearly talking about state constitutions.

imported post

WORST CASE SCENARIO....with Obama in the white house and the house and senate still under dem control...the UN makes an offer that has the appeasers foaming at the mouth. how hard would it be to ammend the constitution to eliminate the 2nd amendment or the supremity of the constitution?

imported post

yeahYeah wrote:

WORST CASE SCENARIO....with Obama in the white house and the house and senate still under dem control...the UN makes an offer that has the appeasers foaming at the mouth. how hard would it be to ammend the constitution to eliminate the 2nd amendment or the supremity of the constitution?

Click to expand...

Article 5 of the US Constitution: Process of Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Click to expand...

There is no way 3/4ths of the states would give up the 2nd Amendment.

imported post

asforme wrote:

There is no way 3/4ths of the states would give up the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I think he will try to bypass it somehow. Illegally, probably, but I bet he tries.

imported post

rodbender wrote:

asforme wrote:

There is no way 3/4ths of the states would give up the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I think he will try to bypass it somehow. Illegally, probably, but I bet he tries.

Click to expand...

Oh no doubt, I was just answering the question about amendments.

This is why it is important to look at the judges who will potentially be striking down Obama's "change". Everyone seems to think that the President is the only important election when it comes to judges, personally I have no hope for the presidency this election and I think our last chance lies with congress. We need to be putting big time pressure on our representatives and senators to Constitutionally remove 4 justices from the supreme court as they are no longer operating in "good behavior" (promoting an agenda instead of the Constution), and we need our senators to refuse to confirm any appointments of Justices who would not rule according to the origional intent of the Constution. It doesn't matter who our president is if his power is properly held in check by our representatives and senators.

imported post

I agree 100%, asforme, 100%.

imported post

If you guys are so concerned that a president can take away your rights by making treaties or selecting the wrong judges, maybe the constitution isn't so good at protecting your rights.Why worship it so?

imported post

rodbender wrote:

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

richarcm wrote:

Apparently if the United Nations agrees to ban handguns it will supercede our 2nd ammendment.

Click to expand...

This is not true. Stop spreading this falsehood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

Click to expand...

Nothing can supercede the Constitution. If Obama gets elected I think he and the commies we have in Congress will try.

Click to expand...

Not true....
5 illiterate justices can supercede the constitution, and don't even need to justify
it.

imported post

rodbender wrote:

Ohio Patriot wrote:

Time to join a militia group.

Click to expand...

You are part of a militia. Read the Federalists Papers.

Click to expand...

It is true that by the intent of our founding fathers of this country we are all in the Militia, but the problem is that all too few people are part of an organized local militia these days. My great grand dad was in a local Detroit militia known as the Spartans between the world wars. It's a constitutional obligation that has become unpopular due to anti's labeling organized local militias as crazy extremists. I don't think any of us here care about appeasing anti's, so I think Ohio Patriot has an outstanding suggestion.

imported post

Michigander wrote:

rodbender wrote:

Ohio Patriot wrote:

Time to join a militia group.

Click to expand...

You are part of a militia. Read the Federalists Papers.

Click to expand...

It is true that by the intent of our founding fathers of this country we are all in the Militia, but the problem is that all too few people are part of an organized local militia these days. My great grand dad was in a local Detroit militia known as the Spartans between the world wars. It's a constitutional obligation that has become unpopular due to anti's labeling organized local militias as crazy extremists. I don't think any of us here care about appeasing anti's, so I think Ohio Patriot has an outstanding suggestion.

Click to expand...

up until i become a voter and then a gun owner, i thought militias were evil extremists who needed to be stopped.

imported post

yeahYeah wrote:

up until i become a voter and then a gun owner, i thought militias were evil extremists who needed to be stopped.

Click to expand...

I never thought malitias were evil extremists. I just wanted to go my own way and NOT draw attention to myself.

imported post

asforme wrote:

There is no way 3/4ths of the states would give up the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

there are several currently recognized constitutional ammendments that have questionable ratifications, and they are still in force. for example, the ratification of the 14th ammendment was forced upon the southern States as a condition of "re-entering" the Union, even though a 4 year war had just been waged based upon the federal belief that the states had never left the Union, and several other states had rescinded their ratification of the ammendment in protest to clauses that many felt were entirely too discriminatory regarding former confederate soldiers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Controversy_over_ratification

others have also expressed doubt regarding the validity of the 16th ammendment, although I have never studied that situation, so I can add nothing of merit.

simply put, If this were teh Constitutional republic envisioned by the founders, the necessity of ratification would provide yet another valuable safeguard against gov't tyranny, however that was then and this is now.

imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:

SNIP simply put, If this were teh Constitutional republic envisioned by the founders, the necessity of ratification would provide yet another valuable safeguard against gov't tyranny, however that was then and this is now.

Click to expand...

A very good point.

May I take it a bit further?

I think it is the Constitutional republic envisioned by the Founders. By that I don't mean theyintended for it to get all screwed up. I mean that even the good ones knew the law only does so much. They knew very well the history and survivability of democracies. Even Ben Franklin doubted it would last (see his closing address to the Constitutional Convention). They knew that all the laws in the world, so much ink on paper,are only as good as the people are vigilant and tolerate no departures. I think they suspected it would come to this. Even Jefferson thought an insurrection every so often was not a bad thing, meaning he knew power-grabbers would try to get away with stuff.

From my limited reading, I've come to understand that any departure sets the stage for further departure later. Look what's happened to the 4th Amendment and grand juries since the founding. Government encroachments haven't come all at once. Its been little steps and bigger steps here and there all down the line.

The Constitution is just the Constitution. Its the players and what they do that one needs to keep his eye on. Its guaranteed--guaranteed--that certain types of personalitiesin and out of government will angle for more power and control.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Its guaranteed--guaranteed--that certain types of personalitiesin and out of government will angle for more power and control.

Click to expand...

Do you mean people like Comrade Pelosi and His Highness Reid and The Saviour Obama?

I heard today that in an interview(don't remember when) he was asked"Whatis sin?"

His answer was "Sin is when your core values are not in alignment with mine".

Does he have a God complex or what? Obama, what a character.