Skip to comments.
How treaties trump
the Constitution (a timely re-post & must read)
World Net Daily ^
| July 04 & 06
| Henry Lamb
Posted on 07/30/2006 2:51:32 PM PDT by yoe
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-87 next last
To: editor-surveyor
No, a treaty with provisions that violate the Bill of Rights is certainly eligible for ratification. Now, can those offending elements be defended in court successfully?
41
posted on
07/30/2006 6:32:07 PM PDT
by
muawiyah
(-/sarcasm)
To: yoe
Your article is in error. The SCOTUS has held that the Commerce Clause give the legislature authority to regulate transactions within states, because they could, at any time, become interstate transactions.
Scalito had a great dissent recently... "(some little frog) for reasons of it's own, spends its entire life within the state of California..."
Still, that is the legal justification for regulation of wildlife, regulation of Marijuana, regulation of firearms.
42
posted on
07/30/2006 6:35:45 PM PDT
by
donmeaker
(If the sky don't say "Surrender Dorothy" then my ex wife is out of town.)
To: SAJ
dedicated to the destruction of the United States....
You mean like Jeff Davis and his buddies?
43
posted on
07/30/2006 6:38:16 PM PDT
by
donmeaker
(If the sky don't say "Surrender Dorothy" then my ex wife is out of town.)
To: muawiyah
An interesting way to look at the problem!
44
posted on
07/30/2006 6:38:51 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
To: SierraWasp
Environmental laws are strange. For example, the Secretary of Defense was allowed to permit filling in an estuary for purposes of national defense.
At the same time a pre-existing law exempted the US Postal Service from any federal law that didn't specifically name it as being subject to that law.
Interestingly enough, the same law prohibiting everybody but DOD from filling in an estuary didn't name USPS. This meant USPS could fill in an estuary any time it pleased.
I thought this was quite ineresting and checked with the Facilities folks at USPS to see if they were aware of this. They already had a list of such projects worked up and my informant suggested they had accelerated the schedule of work before the environmentalists noticed.
45
posted on
07/30/2006 6:38:56 PM PDT
by
muawiyah
(-/sarcasm)
To: SierraWasp
This reply is probably the most brilliant I ever seen on FR! Can't be. You've seen that post before. Must be an involuted recursive hyperbole. ;-)
46
posted on
07/30/2006 6:41:21 PM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(Islam offers three choices: fight, submit, or die.)
To: Medicine Warrior
> Can this actually be interpreted any other way?
No, I can't see any _sane_ way that it could be.
47
posted on
07/30/2006 7:03:46 PM PDT
by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.)
To: SierraWasp
48
posted on
07/30/2006 7:20:44 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
To: Carry_Okie
For bald-faced smoke and mirrors treatment of the manner in which they are ratified (of which your posts are but a shallow imitation),That's pretty funny!! For some more laughs, why don't you explain again how US Treasury Bills are backed by water and mineral rights?
49
posted on
07/30/2006 8:12:22 PM PDT
by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
To: Carry_Okie
50
posted on
07/30/2006 8:36:35 PM PDT
by
SierraWasp
(Where's my "Cheney in '08" bumpersticker!!! He's the only one who can beat Algore!!!)
To: Carry_Okie
"Must be an involuted recursive hyperbole"Besides! You know I don't do "cursive!" I may curse a little, but NO CURSIVE!!! (dammit!)
Also, I'm like the CEO that writes a memo with deliberately challengable lines, or quotes in it. Then I sit back and see who's reading for comprehension!!!
There is something like that in one of my replies on this very thread and no one has called me on it yet.
51
posted on
07/30/2006 8:43:28 PM PDT
by
SierraWasp
(Where's my "Cheney in '08" bumpersticker!!! He's the only one who can beat Algore!!!)
To: Carry_Okie
Wholly Criminetlingham!!! You wrote that and posted it 10 days before 9-11-2001!!! (that was when we were still running under Bill Clinton's non-existent war on terror under Jamie Gorelick's rules of non-engagement!)
52
posted on
07/30/2006 8:48:17 PM PDT
by
SierraWasp
(Where's my "Cheney in '08" bumpersticker!!! He's the only one who can beat Algore!!!)
To: muawiyah
"before the environmentalists noticed."More proof the inmates are running the GovernMental Insane Asylum!!!
53
posted on
07/30/2006 8:54:13 PM PDT
by
SierraWasp
(Where's my "Cheney in '08" bumpersticker!!! He's the only one who can beat Algore!!!)
To: donmeaker
What have you got against the beaten down 10th amendment???
54
posted on
07/30/2006 8:55:41 PM PDT
by
SierraWasp
(Where's my "Cheney in '08" bumpersticker!!! He's the only one who can beat Algore!!!)
To: Toddsterpatriot
No! No! Noooooooooooooooo!!! You're thinking of Fannie Mays, not T-Bills!!! They are backed by the full faith and credit of Jamie Gorelicker!!!
55
posted on
07/30/2006 8:59:04 PM PDT
by
SierraWasp
(Where's my "Cheney in '08" bumpersticker!!! He's the only one who can beat Algore!!!)
To: SierraWasp
Mmmmmmmmm.....Fanny May.
56
posted on
07/30/2006 9:05:05 PM PDT
by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
To: Toddsterpatriot
Why... Those look just like chocolates, sorta!!!
57
posted on
07/30/2006 9:10:23 PM PDT
by
SierraWasp
(Where's my "Cheney in '08" bumpersticker!!! He's the only one who can beat Algore!!!)
To: neverdem; Tolik; Carry_Okie
58
posted on
07/30/2006 9:23:25 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
To: yoe
59
posted on
07/30/2006 9:26:57 PM PDT
by
NRA2BFree
(Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American G. I.)
To: Carry_Okie
oh, you're already here. nevermind ;)
60
posted on
07/30/2006 9:27:33 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-87 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson