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 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 221-224 next last
To: MrB
This will be like trying to outlaw gravity.
Those trying to enforce it will face the reality of it. I was thinking more along the lines of F = ma.
141
posted on
07/05/2012 7:57:23 AM PDT
by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
To: NELSON111
These guys like power...Right there is the core of the problem. Term limits, an end to exemptions from some laws, congressional pensions and special healthcare would be a good start. Change power to service, where it belongs.
142
posted on
07/05/2012 7:57:55 AM PDT
by
JimRed
(Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of LibertyI'm st! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
To: shalom aleichem
Our problem is only a 5-4 majority of court rules that 2nd Amendment is a personal right of liberty. Simple solution, band together as a militia... then secure a free state.
143
posted on
07/05/2012 7:59:48 AM PDT
by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
To: pabianice
“A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution”
Bullshit.
144
posted on
07/05/2012 8:00:49 AM PDT
by
Nik Naym
(It's not my fault... I have compulsive smartass disorder.)
To: pabianice
A treaty does NOT supercede the Constitution of these United States!
145
posted on
07/05/2012 8:02:17 AM PDT
by
95B30
( The Professional Left: "Their morals are crooked, their take logic is flawed, their honor is stolen)
To: KarlInOhio
Last time I checked it required 2/3 of the Senate to vote to ratify a treaty. It's 2/3 of senators present; so then 0 senators would be technically viable, however that'd likely get a call... so the solution is a small group that agree with the treaty.
146
posted on
07/05/2012 8:02:50 AM PDT
by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
To: pabianice
Consider the source. When was the last time Dick Morris was right about ANYTHING??
147
posted on
07/05/2012 8:04:03 AM PDT
by
Donkey Odious
(I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
To: Venturer
The ones coming after your guns will not be alone. But the ones giving the orders will be, every morning and night when they leave for, or return from, their office. More importantly, their families will be alone. They should be made aware of this, and that attacks on average citizens in their homes (which necessarily put THEIR families at risk) will not give the average citizen any incentive to play by Roberts Rules of Order. The more aware that "they" are of this, the less likely that anything truly bad will happen.
148
posted on
07/05/2012 8:04:11 AM PDT
by
Ancesthntr
(Bibi to Odumbo: Its not going to happen.)
To: freedumb2003
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause: "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; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Exactly. That includes Roberts, and any "treaty" anyone signs. The Constitution including the second amendment stands.
They can shove their anti-gun "treaty" .....
And just because Roberts says something is constitutional doesn't make it so.
149
posted on
07/05/2012 8:04:36 AM PDT
by
SCalGal
(Friends don't let friends donate to H$U$ or PETA.)
To: freedumb2003
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause:
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; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in (
the constitution or laws of any state) to the contrary notwithstanding.
Parens added for clarity.
150
posted on
07/05/2012 8:05:12 AM PDT
by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
To: ctdonath2
if Obama’s UN envoy signs this the election is over
I cannot believe the stupidity and the arrogance of the imbeciles advising ‘the smartest man in the room’
unless, of course, they have already rigged the election and don’t care about pubic opinion
151
posted on
07/05/2012 8:06:30 AM PDT
by
Abundy
To: pabianice
Obama would not be this brazen unless he is certain he will win re-election ‘by any means necessary’.
152
posted on
07/05/2012 8:08:28 AM PDT
by
golas1964
(Obama must be defeated in 2012)
To: OneWingedShark
It's 2/3 of senators present; so then 0 senators would be technically viable... No. You'd still need a quorum of 51. Minimum 34 Senators needed then to ratify. How you'd manage to exclude 49 Senators from attending the vote is what I'm waiting to hear.
To: pabianice
1. A treaty does not supercede the constitution
2. There are not 67 votes for this POS in the Senate. (Unless we get some GOP turncoats so call your senators)
154
posted on
07/05/2012 8:10:44 AM PDT
by
Georgia Girl 2
(The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
To: wildandcrazyrussian
What about 3 out of only 3 present when the left-wingers keep a running count? How many minutes does it take to ram through a vote with no regard for "Senatorial courtesy"? Would you want to be one of those 3? Seriously, I think that even Upchuck Schumer isn't that stupid - because he simply cannot be guarded out to a range of 500 yards on a 24/7/365 basis, no matter how many security people he has working for him. FYI, I'm not threatening anyone, nor am I encouraging anyone to engage in any illegal act(s) - I am merely stating what I believe to be the facts.
155
posted on
07/05/2012 8:12:00 AM PDT
by
Ancesthntr
(Bibi to Odumbo: Its not going to happen.)
To: redgolum
Yes, and they know where you live.I'm not even on their radar screen. Harmless old guy, veteran, cop supporter (most of the time).
156
posted on
07/05/2012 8:12:19 AM PDT
by
JimRed
(Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of LibertyI'm st! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
To: MissMagnolia
A vote for this is a vote to go home. The real question is "would that include a pine overcoat as travel attire?" (i.e. Are we really serious?)
157
posted on
07/05/2012 8:13:47 AM PDT
by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
To: Dr. Sivana
This of course begs the question as to why we would sign treaties that contradict the Constitution, much less submit them to the Senate. Sometimes presidents sign treaties for purely symbolic, political reasons, knowing they will never be ratified. Kyoto, for example, signed by President Clinton and rejected by a unanimous Senate vote (95-0.)
To: bill1952
"...charge full speed ahead with this in July. Go for it and Godspeed to you! Its a big winner!! Absolutely! This is something every right-thinking Liberal has to get behind immediately!
And for those in that camp who don't know how to properly fire a gun, just be sure that you're looking straight down the right hole when you push the trigger...
LMAO!!!!!!
;^D
159
posted on
07/05/2012 8:15:59 AM PDT
by
Gargantua
("Barack O'Bunga--America's first gay president...")
To: CodeToad
That is not 67 required. Only 2/3rds present are required to vote for a treaty to ratify it.
The Constitution also says that someone can be impeached upon a 2/3 vote of the members present.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson