Posted on 02/16/2009 10:49:57 AM PST by shielagolden
The precise wording of only one oath of office is mandated by the U.S. Constitution. It is the presidential oath. It reads "to preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution, not merely support it. Most other federal, state and local oaths of public office incorporate that phrase. Tragically, few politicians at any level appear to take that oath seriously. Which brings me to the second part of your reply to me:
The Constitution is supreme over laws and treaties...
It's critical to grasp the correct -- and plain -- meaning of Article VI, Section 2.
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...
Any treaty duly signed by a U.S. president and ratified by the Senate is, together with the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Without question, conflicts in the language of a particular treaty and the language of the Constitution can occur. Such conflicts would have to be addressed in the legislation passed by Congress to enable executive action for the provisions of any treaty.
The whole thing can become a legal quagmire, especially with something as explosive as the ICC treaty. This is why it's absolutely critical to try to stop ratification of the ICC treaty in the Senate. And issues like this are exactly why I'll repeat as long as necessary that ELECTIONS HAVE THOUSANDS OF CONSEQUENCES.
I love that. Did you make it yourself?
-PJ
I think you cleared that up for me in a previous post. I defer to your explanation!
That document is mine, also. I am not arguing against your broad point that the Constitution belongs to "the people." What I am doing is trying to get people here to grasp what we have lost and what we need to try to get back if we are ever going have the Constitution mean anything other than to be a butt wipe for federal politicians.
So how does that happen? I'm thinking a walk across America, THE AMERICANS, millions of us, 'storming the Bastille', ousting the senate and congress; visualize tar, feathers, pitchforks, and Jimmy Stewart. We 'hired' them, let's 'fire' them.
I'm willing to take over the congress, but there are to many keyboard warriors who are comfy behind their computers. Of course, I'd start walking, and 4 people would join me. People, this isn't a game anymore. Guess what? Marxim's here, it's now and it's real.
I'd organize this is a nanosecond if there was the will of real constitutional Americans. Everyone talks and talks, and types and types. When the rubber hits the road, excuses range from my job, my family, my whatever is foremost, I cannot be bothered with a the simple concept as freedom and liberty. Taking for granted our country and way of life. We assumed it would be there forever and this would never happen to us. That was our biggest error, we got comfy.
Well, it's here, it's now, and it's happening. Want a revolution? Want to live by the constitution? Typing on a web site doesn't work, actions do. Anyone willing to explore this? Anyone willing to say, enough is enough? Anyone want to fight? Anyone willing to put their money where their fingers are? Actions are what's needed. A million people ousting congress, and restoring our country is what's needed. Or will YOU wait until someone else does it? Aren't you tired of waiting for that someone to do something? Hey everyone, WE ARE THAT SOMEONE! I'm ready to rumble, and I'm dead serious. Someone has to start something, I'm willing to start the effort.
We can go in 'backrooms' and figure out the details. I prefer to lay it right out here, let them know, we're coming. No more secret legislation, no more queens and kings and royality!
WE NEED ACTION NOW!
Yes, they are, as subject to the treaties with the countries they are serving in.
Why is the idea of U.S. military personnel being subject to the ICC more controversial than them being subject to the laws of the British Parliament?
This is because countries with malaise towards the US like Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea could use the ICC to bring up false charges against US servicemembers and politicians.
Very true, PJ, although it's better to never allow a monstrosity like the ICC treaty to be ratified than to fight a rear guard action if it is.
President George W. Bush, to his everlasting credit, understood this. The Republican Congress of the late 1990's didn't ratified the thing after Clinton signed it. To avoid having later senates even consider it, President Bush revoked Clinton's signature. But as sure as night follows day, it was a lock that Obama and his Leftist crowd would bring it back up ASAP.
-PJ
Tough for now, but the Left is so close now that they can smell victory. If they succeed in getting this ratified, it will, in effect, bring the U.S. under the heel of the embryonic world government the international Left has been slowly constructing in Europe. Not only must this monstrosity be defeated, we must find a way to put a stake through it's heart and kill it permanently.
From the Left's perspective, they only need to elect a few more Democrats and/or northeast liberal Republicans. I absolutely hate the term RINO because it's so overused that it's lost all substance. But any Republican who would consider voting to ratify this thing most definitely is not any kind of Republican I would recognize.
No!...a "civil war" does not apply to what is coming and cannot happen here.
If he does, then what he does deserve is a "2nd revolution" that restores the former Constitutional Republic.
Subject to civil and standard criminal laws, yes, but not if those laws conflict with U.S. laws in any drastic way. For example, so-called honor killings are legal in some countries, but U.S. law considers them murder.
The real point of the ICC treaty is subjugate all U.S. law to the embryonic world government slowly being created by the international Left. It's an EXTREMELY DANGEROUS piece of crap that no serious U.S. president would ever sign, nor any serious U.S. senate ever ratify.
Another point. Gen. Jim Jones, a former Commandant of the Marine Corps, is in favor of a law that would place the military under ICC. If a purge happens, the senior staff levels would probly support the Administration, against their own troops. And you wonder why Hadetha was allowed to go forward ?
No, it's a violation of the sovereign's right of self-government.
Barack Obama is not a sovereign. The sovereign in this land is the People of the United States.
Among the powers of the sovereign is the judicial power, which We delegated to a Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress has seen fit to ordain and establish.
The so-called "International Criminal Court" is not an Article III court, and neither is Barack Obama.
He can't delegate a jurisdiction nor a power which he lacks, so the idea that he can "place U.S. under International Criminal 'Court'" is absurd on its face.
The first people on ICC’s list to be “tried as war criminals” are the IDF, the Israeligovernment, and the Israeli “settlers.” Coming in second would be our own military in Iraq and Bush.
The people who are demanding that Bush be brought to trial, are the same whose truly treasonous crimes should be investigated first.
Please disseminate widely.
Civil Disobedience.
And if that does not work,
Civil War.
Yeah, good reply. Next victim..... Do you have any PLANS?
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.