Posted on 03/21/2013 7:52:05 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
You're the epitome of a mental midget!
Worry about...
Worry about...
Worry about...
Who made you my boss to tell me what to do?
Control freak!
How can Americans POSSIBLY be subject to laws that violate our Constitution and Bill of Rights?
This would be a TREASONOUS action on the part of the Administration and Congress.
Regarding the vienna convention of treaties
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M0Qm-mShNSg
Some law indicating that the this treaty WOULD BE BINDING ON US CITIZENS and circumvent the second amendment.
(there is a reason the MSM has censored this story. This is propaganda by blackout)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/70972352/Vienna-Convention-on-the-Law-of-Treaties
Justices of the Supreme Court Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer have said that international law ought to take precedence over US law.
Barack H. Obama has played loose with the Constitution and various laws and precedents before this and used executive priviledge to SUCCESSFULLY acomplish this.
THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE of the Vienna Convention Treaty on Treaties.
This is how they will repeal the second amendment. FYI the conference ends today. Kerry wants to sign it. Obama has now said he WILL sign it. Reid will never allow the vote.
The primary targets have to be those who GIVE THE ORDERS to confiscate our arms. Cut off the head and the snake will die. Find out who they are, where they live and work, how they travel, their personal habits NOW before the public records are scrubbed by the regime.
That may be because there are a few of us who are actually trying to analyze this for where the real hazard is, as opposed to building an unfounded fear frenzy on the right, which is as unproductive as inattention to real risks. I respect your opinion, but I have long since decided I am not able to discern true "plants" from people for whom the question is genuine. Thus, while I might suspect someone who is playing UP the hazards of this treaty beyond legal reality of trying to aid in building the mindset that such a treaty would have any real authority to override our fundamental rights under the Constitution, I will still treat that person as if their inquiry is genuine, because even "plants" are real people, and may even be persuaded by the truth if I can make a good enough case.
Having said all that, I wish to inform you I am studying your earlier points concerning Covert and ESA and am developing an extended response, possibly good material for a law review article, so it will not be quick to produce. The indefensibly short version, and subject to revision or even partial reversal when I get the analysis done, is that Covert does indeed stand for the principle that the Bill of (individual) Rights cannot be directly overridden by any international agreement. There are a host of reasons for this, and those provided in the decision itself rely on generic principles of legal reasoning so basic and so powerful they hold a “but for” relationship to the holding. That is, while they are not the bare bones statement of holding (in Covert the disposition of military custody of Mrs. Covert), neither are they strictly “dicta” as you have used the term, mere commentary; rather, they are the Ratio decidendi, the rationale provided to establish the legal authority of the decision, and are therefore not disposable as mere throwaway commentary.
There is some irony, therefore in your use of the Endangered Species Act to demonstrate the contrary position, as it can be argued it derives its present (illegitimate) force from Justice Holmes’ TRUE “obiter dictum” in Missouri v Holland concerning the Supremacy Clause, statements which are not dispositive of the case holding, but which have encouraged the “living constitution” crowd to blindly accept at least the possibility that the treaty power could be used to trump the Bill of Rights.
But I do concede, and did concede in my earliest posts in this thread, that abuses of individual rights may occur under a regime that is lawless at its core. So I hope you realize I have not minimized the hazard. I agree there is one. I have simply located it elsewhere than our own Constitution. I have located it in the hearts of evil persons who have no use for our law other than to aggregate power for themselves.
And I further concede the subject is complex and has been hotly debated. This short statement of mine by no means exhausts even the beginnings of a fair treatment of the subject. I simply wish for people to be aware that the Constitution and precedent law stand as friends to the natural rights our founders sought to protect for us, their posterity. Even the abuses of the ESA have occurred, not as a direct contravention of property rights, but from what I have seen so far, are always inflicted by indirect means (contractual technicalities, standing, etc.), and more recently even giving way to Fifth Amendment concerns (See Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 313 (Fed. Cl. 2001)), though admittedly still an unsettled area of the law.
So while I agree we should mightily resist the acceptance of such a treaty, it is not because natural right or our Constitution can be bent to support such usurpations. It is because we need to prevent the Regime from acquiring yet another propaganda tool by which it will be able to persuade the low information voter, against all reason and history, that the Constitution supports the subversion of the Constitution, and therefore we can use treaties to start from scratch. In my opinion, arguments that legitimize such propaganda are not helpful to our cause. I hope you understand I do not think ill of anyone sincerely making such an argument. Only that it is incorrect and unhelpful.
Furthermore, I reserve the right to change my opinion upon further study, within limits. If all else fails, I will still hold we have natural rights that are inalienable, and that the right to life is the main spring from which flows the derivative rights, including the right to armed self-defense, that the Constitution when understood as it was intended will always come down on the side of those rights, no matter who dares speak against them, and on those beliefs you can be sure I will never waver.
Peace,
SR
In my opinion, it can be read in two ways. As you may have noted in that article, I believe it was the price of the financial support for which the country was at that time, desperate. It was a matter that was never debated in the Federal Convention.
I will start with a quote of the Supremacy Clause:
However, if the clause is read with the second comma redacted, 'and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States shall be the supreme Law of the Land;' then the treaty takes force over the remaining Constitution. With both commas there, it can be read either way. At least, that's my reading of it. ;-)
This of course would explain why an outrage such as the Convention on Nature Protection could remain in force.
Thus, while I might suspect someone who is playing UP the hazards of this treaty beyond legal reality of trying to aid in building the mindset that such a treaty would have any real authority to override our fundamental rights under the Constitution, I will still treat that person as if their inquiry is genuine, because even "plants" are real people, and may even be persuaded by the truth if I can make a good enough case.
When precedent becomes pretext, whether violations of rights and usurpation of power becomes moot, because power is usually irreversible without the price of blood. Hence, regardless of whether a treaty is constitutionally legitimate, that it can be used as a pretext is an unacceptable event, the portent for which should be viewed with alarm.
Having said all that, I wish to inform you I am studying your earlier points concerning Covert and ESA and am developing an extended response, possibly good material for a law review article, so it will not be quick to produce.
I welcome the exchange. Be aware however, that on the technical aspects of environmental issues, I can be reasonably regarded as something of an expert. I am not saying that to intimidate, but to encourage you to look beyond that article on those linked sites to get some sense of the scope of what is behind what I say so as to avoid wasting your time and possible misunderstandings. I think you already know that we are in complete agreement about the importance of protecting natural rights.
Hitler made that mistake in the battle of Brittan. He had the English on the verge of defeat and switched from attacking their airforce to attacking their cities. He lost. The enemy's capacity to use force must be nullified
This government does not follow the Constitution anyway. You have convinced me that your analysis is correct, but what difference does it make if the current tyrants ignore the Constitution? In practice the Constitution now only means whatever five or more Supreme Court justices say it means. Reality and legality mean less and less everyday, and these damn tyrants in D.C. will do whatever they think they can get by with. Tyrants and criminals by their very nature do not follow the law; therefore, it is incumbent upon us to make clear to them what kind of price they will pay.
Attacking the cities did not target the leadership; it was to terrorize the populace, who might then demand that their leaders end it. His biggest mistake was declaring war against the U.S. after Pearl Harbor and our response against his "ally", Japan.
You don't get it - probably on purpose. The point is that he had England on the ropes, and for whatever reason in switching away from targeting England's ability to wage war, he lost. Another concept you don't get is that there is no shortage of liberal "leaders." If Bloomturd, schumer, Feinstein, McCarthy,etc. all got hit by lightning tonight NOTHING would change. They're simply the turds currently floating on the top of the liberal anti-gun septic tank. Sink them and a whole fresh crop would float up.
Not that they don't deserve to sink. Just don't think that would change anything
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.