Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Morris: Civilian gun ban to be signed July 27
Fox News Channel (no link) | 7/5/12

Posted on 07/05/2012 5:46:45 AM PDT by pabianice

Dick Morris now on Fox. Morris says the UN Gun Ban Treaty is scheduled to be signed by Obama's U.S. ambassador to the UN on July 27. According to Morris, treaty will be rammed through by the lame duck Senate after the November election if the Democrats are still in charge. A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution. Interesting months ahead.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; gunban; treaties; ungunbantreaty; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-224 next last
To: Lady Lucky

If your referring to the spelling error in the first line; it’s not my spelling error. I was replying to someone else. I pasted their quote. If it has a spelling error in it, I leave it. Not my job to correct other posters’ spelling.


81 posted on 07/05/2012 6:51:17 AM PDT by skully (06/28/2012 : The banner no longer yet waves....Gadsden DTOM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
This line puts treaties on par with The Constitution itself. And newer laws supercede older laws.

It does no such thing. See Post #60 above.

82 posted on 07/05/2012 6:51:54 AM PDT by PhatHead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

It isn’t coming to a vote.


83 posted on 07/05/2012 6:53:34 AM PDT by PhatHead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution. Interesting months ahead.

No, it does not.

84 posted on 07/05/2012 6:55:17 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (If I can't be persuasive, I at least hope to be fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Article VI, Clause 2 does NOT say that treaties supersede the Constitution. The Clause, in effect, says that the Constitution, Federal Law, and Treaties are the supreme law of the land, and supersede state laws and state constitutions.

The Constitution is supreme over Federal Laws and Treaties (note that the Clause refers to federal laws “made in pursuance [of the Constitution]” and treaties made “under the authority of the United States” (a treaty can’t be made under the authority of the United States if it is Unconstitutional). Simply put, treaties do not supersede the Constitution.


85 posted on 07/05/2012 6:57:18 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

“A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution.”

Says who?”

According to the Constitution, no treaty may supercede the Constitution of the United States.

But if the UN wants to try to come and get them, it’s their funeral.


86 posted on 07/05/2012 6:58:04 AM PDT by BCR #226 (02/07 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
Last time I checked it required 2/3 of the Senate to vote to ratify a treaty.

2/3 of senators PRESENT. They might try a parliamentary trick where they pass it at 3am when only Dems happen to be present, but that would be raw even by Dem standards.

87 posted on 07/05/2012 6:58:23 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (If I can't be persuasive, I at least hope to be fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

so then fast and furious wasn’t really necessary?

Constitution? To hell with that little piece of American history.
This magic negro really is something.


88 posted on 07/05/2012 6:59:48 AM PDT by Joe Boucher ((FUBO) Hey Mitt, F-you too pal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titan Magroyne
...but also to remind posters that treaty passage requires only a 2/3s majority AMONG THOSE PRESENT.

Yes, of course. Harry Reid will secretly schedule a vote, only inviting those 51 Senators among whom he can get 34 votes, and the 58 Senators who've already publicly signed letters in opposition, some of whom will have to be invited to get a quorum, will not tell anybody else, or those not invited will stay home and sit on their hands instead of showing up to vote.

I have to say, this thread is an entertaining one.

89 posted on 07/05/2012 7:01:47 AM PDT by PhatHead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Click on image to download PDF file of poster.

90 posted on 07/05/2012 7:02:40 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the sociopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Vermont Vet

Whew..that list brings back bad memories...


91 posted on 07/05/2012 7:03:06 AM PDT by moovova (Pandora has left the box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

If true, then the balloon goes up.


92 posted on 07/05/2012 7:03:26 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Kissinger for one.

The courts for another.

Happens all the time with seamans’ claims. We have treaties which adhere to foreign jurisdiction. Shippers set those up in order to avoid the level playing field of US courts.


93 posted on 07/05/2012 7:03:29 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

If true, then the balloon goes up.


94 posted on 07/05/2012 7:03:35 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
I hope that's a 1,000 yard target. But, having worked hunter sight-ins for many years, I suspect not.
95 posted on 07/05/2012 7:04:16 AM PDT by kitchen (Over gunned is better than the alternative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: GBA

Time to face the facts: The Supreme Court has been compromised.

The next bill that comes along (doesn’t even have to be relevant) will be re-written to re-define the 2nd amendment.

This could happen in the hext few weeks/months. Let’s not kid ourselves and think it won’t happen - it just did!

Then they’ll re-define the 1st amendment. With John Roberts in their pocket, they could actually do all of this before November.


96 posted on 07/05/2012 7:04:23 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: PhatHead

Legal definitions are one thing, reality is another. We are no longer playing by the Constitution.

Obama would EASILY claim the US has “...signed onto the greatest treaty of the world’s nations, to secure our freedom from violence and the criminal international arms dealers, to help prevent wars, violence against women and children, and to give each nation the right to choose for itself if tolerance to violence will be accepted. Therefore, as Narcissist in Chief, I have issued an executive order, under the laws already passed, to curtail gun violence by adherence to this treaty. There will be those that do not like this measure of security for our families, but we must act and act now. I take this bold measure knowing there will be those in Congress who oppose it, but they only respond to big arms corporations and special interests like the NRA and not to you, as I have done with this order.”


97 posted on 07/05/2012 7:05:01 AM PDT by CodeToad (Homosexuals are homophobes. They insist on being called 'gay' instead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: 109ACS

DITTO!!!!!! “Come and take them”!


98 posted on 07/05/2012 7:06:04 AM PDT by Ab Alius Domitor ("In the end; the winner")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: baddog 219

It seems they have forgotten. They must have also forgotten we are being run by the most corrupt administration in American history. These criminals will do what they want, when they want, period. Only one way to deal with them. I have a feeling you know what that is.


99 posted on 07/05/2012 7:06:25 AM PDT by 383rr (Those who choose security over liberty deserve neither; GUN CONTROL= SLAVERY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
They will send your local cops and other local officials first.

Before you say “Sheriff Bob would NEVER do that!”, history suggests otherwise.

So stop dreaming of nice blue helmets, and realize that it would be your neighbors first. Then the US military, and then it won't matter because you will be dead or we will be in a civil war.

The FedGov is operating like Fast and Furious never got found out. They will move to ban guns soon.

100 posted on 07/05/2012 7:07:12 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-224 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson