Posted on 10/29/2013 5:30:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
Wouldn’t brother me a bit to take a pack on with a good rifle and enough ammo.
Lev 26:21 'Then, if you walk contrary to Me, and are not willing to obey Me, I will bring on you seven times more plagues, according to your sins.
Lev 26:22 I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, destroy your livestock, and make you few in number; and your highways shall be desolate.
Cousin of mine lives on the edge of a national forest in Arkansas. He was telling me that some years ago the government came in and released a bunch of rattle snakes into the forest. Their reasoning was at one time the forest had rattlers in it.
***the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed***
The citizens of New Mexico should have cleaned those vermin out during the Government Shutdown a few weeks ago!
The wolves, that is.
Another example of unintended consequences. Just like sea lions and porpoise. There are so many they are eating all the small fish and taking over. Now the wolves are going to start eating children! Only another feel good thing from enviros and politicians who never leave washington.
I can sorely sympathize with caffeine depredation.
“The government is a classic case of taking off your socks and turning them inside out because “now they are clean again”.”
May I remind all of the “Inter-Agency Agreement” routine which is analogous to:
“Mr/MS ParcPerson you have worn your underwear for five days - That NASTY!
You will therefore change underwear with the nice Game Officer.”
And now you know why they are know as ‘game(y) officers.
‘Specially if you ever stepped down wind of one of those things.
“Wouldn’t brother me a bit to take a pack on with a good rifle and enough ammo.”
Unless you harbor the same vision of being scat which Timothy Treadwell voiced, may I suggest having your “Close encounter of the Lupine kind” from fifteen feet up a tree.
Thanks to two generations of environmentalism/communism, and the pernicious effect of Mann/Dewey on the Academented - American large bodied predators no longer fear man.
Except that the US Constitution was clearly not written to allow treaty law to act like constitutional amendments. Here it is:
“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...”
Treaties make up the supreme law of the land IN ADDITION to the Constitution. Treaties do not supersede the Constitution nor do they amend it. If that was so, then there really was no reason for the founders to write a complicated amendment process.
The article’s author also misreads Hamilton’s intentions. Hamilton probably supported lower standards for treaties (to be passed), because he didn’t think they would override the US Constitution. They might be bad treaties. They might even override state law so long as it concerned an enumerated federal power, but treaties weren’t treated with as much concern because they couldn’t be used to supersede the Constitution.
So, yes. I think the Constitution and treaties are supreme law, but I think it’s illogical to say a treaty can override the Constitution. They are supposed to be compatible with each other.
BTW, if you could point to judicial rulings that claim treaties override Constitutional protections, I’d simply point to the innumerable other rulings that openly defy the Constitution itself. The judges simply make rulings up to suit their purposes, whether it’s the “privacy right” to kill an unborn baby to the right to seize property for virtually any public (government) purpose and not even compensate someone for it if they MIGHT, i.e. not proven in a court of law, have been involved in a crime.
My thoughts exactly.
I suggest you read, carefully, this article which goes into those legal distinctions, as I wrote them both.
The article’s author also misreads Hamilton’s intentions.
Poppycock. The United States was in debt to the point that it could not afford sufficient defense to preclude its reconquest. The French had dictated terms for loans because under the Articles of Confederation there was no way for the United States to assure that they would be repaid. The result is history.
Instead of parents protecting children, this is parents showing the kids a cage and telling them they are on their own.
The article claims Hamilton wanted much easier standards to pass treaties, because he wanted the ability to supersede the US Constitution. That’s certainly one possible interpretation, but it’s also possible he wanted lesser standards simply because he believe treaties couldn’t override constitutional provisions. That’s certainly a possible interpretation, too, and I think it’s a more reasonable one.
The Supremacy clause is pretty clear regardless of the so-called ambiguous placement of commas. You want me to believe the founders created a complex and extremely difficult hurdle for constitutional amendments, but they wanted to amend the Constitution with treaties using a simple 2/3 vote of senators? Sorry, I’m not buying that.
We can agree to disagree.
“Be glad you don’t have to deal with feral pigs too”
I do. They’re usually in front of me at Walmart using their EBT cards.
He lied flatly about the amount of debate on the matter.
but it’s also possible he wanted lesser standards simply because he believe treaties couldn’t override constitutional provisions.
Henry knew better.
You want me to believe the founders created a complex and extremely difficult hurdle for constitutional amendments, but they wanted to amend the Constitution with treaties using a simple 2/3 vote of senators? Sorry, I’m not buying that.
Then you are deluded.
Like I wrote, we can agree to disagree. There is nothing in the US Constitution that states treaties supersede the Constitution itself.
For anyone else that’s lurking...
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm
You can be a conspiracy theorist and believe Hamilton intentionally created a back door into amending the US Constitution or you can believe the plain meaning of the Constitution as written.
I traveled wilderness AK and Canada give me a good rifle and enough ammo and there well be nothing but dead wolfs.
Had you read the second article, it would have explained for you that the language of the Supremacy Clause does NOT have a "plain meaning." In the Federal Convention, Hamilton proposed what was a effectively an unlimited government with a supreme executive branch having a President for life. And here you sit, calling me a conspiracy theorist. In Federalist 75 Hamilton states flatly the necessity for treaties to be conducted in SECRET. and you call me a conspiracy "theorist"? What is the Supreme Law of the Land drafted in secret as ratified by a two thirds of a minimum quorum if not conspiratorial?
No, you are simply ignorant and delusional.
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.