Posted on 07/19/2023 6:45:58 PM PDT by RandFan
@RandPaul
Today I offered an amendment to the NDAA that would have clarified that Article 5 of the NATO treaty does not supersede the constitution.
It should have been an easy vote to affirm the Constitution, to vote against affirming the Constitution actually places doubt in the Constitution. But it was defeated 83-16.
The power to declare war is the most important power and the most important vote that any legislator will ever entertain. See how your senator voted:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/118-2023/s191
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
Ping
And this is what we are up against.
All the nays have violated their oath of office
But I'd bet the 'Republican' nays would have a lot of crossover in support of what Jack Smith is doing, along with what is happening in Michigan and Arizona.
“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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
It is clear that treaties must be must follow the constitution of the United States but no necessarily State constitutions.
So yes, the treaty must follow the United States constitution.
Senator Paul means well, but actually doubt that we would honor the treaty would lead to war. The same goes for Taiwan. The only good thing Biden has done in office is to tell China in plain English “If you invade we fight.” They heard him and won’t invade.
Yeah they are trembling in their Chinese boots over Biden
What about Legislative jurisdiction as defined in the Constitution?
Article 1, Section 8 [POWERS OF CONGRESS]
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings
Well, the Senate — per the US Constitution, approves treaties — approved the NATO treaty, which contained Article 5. So, Rand Paul — whom I respect — must have known that. I think he was just raising a point rather than challenging the treaty. He’s right that only Congress can declare war; however, it can be argued that Congress waived that right when the Senate approved the NATO Treaty, which contained Article 5. I think his measure was simply to clarify the matter.
The United States constitutional republic is Dead. RIP.
I’m not an attorney but that seems to establish Federal jurisdiction over DC and lets it buy land for military bases (usually in places nobody can use for much like the pine barrens of Georgia and the Carolinas).
That really doesn’t seem to have much to do with Congress being able to declare war or having treaties supersede the constitution.
“Blackburn is a surprise.”
Really? You mean after she sided with Trump post election, but lost her will after the “insurrection,” I’m supposed to believe she is anything other than a grifter? She isn’t quite as flexible as Grahamnesty, but she isn’t far off.
Someone in Taiwan gave Joe Shitbag Biden a bigger bribe than the PRC.
Biden does nothing good or from good motives. If he supports Taiwan it is because he has a financial interests in the place.
If you have time, look at this concurring opinion by Justice Thomas in United States v Lopez.
He said the U.S. Congress’ legislative jurisdiction is limited.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZC1.html
.
That’s about the ratio you see on a lot of Senate matters.
70% or better Voted for Merrick Garland
Probably 86% against Trump
John Cornyn is not a RINO, he’s full on liberal Democrat. I will NEVER vote for him again for an office. HUGE disappointment. Just evil and anti-American/Texan.
Paul is correct. And that is the reason Article V does NOT require us to go to war if another NATO member is attacked. It AUTHORIZES each member to take whatever actions it DEEMS necessary. That could be a letter, sending food or equipment, etc.
That clause was written precisely that way for that exact reason, because the war power in old America was in congress with a declaration of war.
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.