Posted on 06/03/2013 12:40:35 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Vienna Treaty did not supercede the ratification requirements of the Constitution, period. Most other nations join a treaty when their chief executive signs it. But we do not, and the Vienna treaty did not change the very structure of the constitution.
Our Republican structure requiring Senatorial assent to the Presidents signature is still firmly in place. The rest of the world, and despotic Presidents, love to imagine that a Presidential signature binds us as it does most nations, but it certainly doesn’t.
Such authority! Uh, that would be "supersede."
In law, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties has no authority because it was never ratified. In effect, it definitely has authority, else the Senate would not have held a "sense of the Senate" vote on Kyoto in order to give cover to those who could not be seen to support it without officially rejecting it. Nor would Bush II have "unsigned" the ICC Treaty, as Clinton's signature would otherwise have no effect. The government has been dancing around it for decades. It's a fact.
The signature means something until a conservative President can get hold of the Department of State and stage a nice layoff. BTW, no less an authority than Henry Lamb (may he rest in peace) did not know that the Vienna Convention had not been ratified because of the degree to which its terms have been integrated into the fabric of international law.
The rest of the world, and despotic Presidents, love to imagine that a Presidential signature binds us as it does most nations, but it certainly doesn’t.
Hand-wave noted on the strength of said august authority. It's been respected for forty years as "customary international law." Given that, until conservatives have a solid hand on both the Senate and the SCOTUS, I don't foresee any substantive change in the government's propensity toward treasonous usurpations of power.
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts
Quite true. However, you may note that 2A has gone forwards, not backwards, in the last 20 years.
There are probably fewer restrictions now on gun rights than at any time in the last 50 years, maybe longer. And there is most certainly less public support for “gun control” than in a very long time, regardless of what the libs say.
That’s why they’re reduced to emotional arguments after each atrocity. Without them, they have no argument at all.
Once a traitor always a traitor.
LLS
As we have seen in the past, activist courts (9th Circuit) and judges don't confine themselves to the constitution or written law when presiding over cases.
So much for the regime’s Lie that they aren’t out to push Universal Registration.
The unabridged dictionary has a separate volume on the definition of "traitor," which includes pictures of Monica's ex-boyfriend and Satan's daughter, Traitorobama, including Kerry and other members of these regimes, along with Demonrat members of Congress, many SCOTUS members, abortion leaders, and the fifth-column media.
Volume II on the definition is also available covering earlier Demonrat administrations, union leaders, NEA officials, and BSA Council members.
You of course are correct.
Many people have been beaten-down and know that the beatdown would only be worse if they pushed it. I myself have had experience with trying to figure out how to challenge a plainly contraconstitutional "law" without acquiescing to that "law" -- it cannot be done: the system is [re]designed to disallow you from arguing the case w/o being in the position of 'defendant' after breaking the 'law' -- this means that you implicitly acknowledge the "law" as authoritative (and therefore valid) should you intentionally violate it.
The wording there makes it rather obvious that the Constitution outrankes the treaty -- but even a moment's thought on the nature of authority would reveal that it cannot be otherwise: the one who sends/authorizes/commissions is of a greater authority than the one sent/authorized/commissioned (SAC). If the SAC acts outside the constraints that they were bound by, then they are not acting legitimately, likewise the authorizer cannot grant unto the SAC greater authority/power than the authorizer has. Therefore, because the Constitution places limits on the government, the government cannot validly bind the people to a treaty that is contrary to the Constitution.
It says "members present", nothing about a quorum -- strictly speaking zero senators would fit the bill, or if you were to argue that at least some senators must be present then one of one is 100%.
Sadly millions of uninformed Americans could not even explain this cartoon or certainly not write a coherent paragraph about it.
Unfortunately, the Republican-party is bound and determined to be the same just look at how they stand by and do nothing on things like Fast & Furious, Benghazi, and soon to be The IRS Scandal — they are not incompetent, because incompetent would put up a better fight, they must therefore be complicit.
I’ve talked about this on other threads, but there is no one who is going to save us from tyranny. We have got to do it ourselves.
We don’t have to be violent about it. Look at what happened yesterday in North Carolina. About 150 people were arrested protesting the Republican state government. Now, I don’t agree with why they’re protesting, but it is effective in attracting attention.
Will they succeed in returning NC’s government back to progressive nonsense? I don’t know, I sure hope not. But we’re certainly not going to change what is happening on the Federal level if we just post complaints on Free Republic.
150 People Arrested In NAACP Protest Against NC Republicans
http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2013/06/03/140-people-arrested-in-naacp-protest-against-nc-republicans/
You weren't listening -- I was talking about doing it ourselves. The authorities have made it virtually impossible to challenge their "law"/rules/regulations without being in violation thereof (i.e. the accused) and this means you have to argue from a position of weakness.
Given that you now cannot reasonably appeal to the higher-law to defeat the lower "law" what else is there? Violence.
This is why society has been brainwashed [via schools] that "violence is never the answer" and that anyone who resorts to violence is in the wrong. (Thus they invalidate any resistance to their unlawful powers in the minds of many.)
Is it possible to regain liberty w/o bloodshed? Perhaps, but I wouldn't bet on it because those in power are disinclined to give up that power.
I agree.
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.