You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gun control and the UN
- Thread starter graybeard321
- Start date
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
Now now Woody,
The actual last line
brits drink heavily
Should read,
Squaddies invade multiple pubs, realise that New York only has Irish pubs.
Find the most Irish Republican ones they can find, get drunk, have fights, make f(r)iends
Start working out how to empty other contingents QM's stores and sell their kit to pay for beer.
On proceeds, introduce competitive drinking as new UN Olympic sport
The actual last line
brits drink heavily
Should read,
Squaddies invade multiple pubs, realise that New York only has Irish pubs.
Find the most Irish Republican ones they can find, get drunk, have fights, make f(r)iends
Start working out how to empty other contingents QM's stores and sell their kit to pay for beer.
On proceeds, introduce competitive drinking as new UN Olympic sport
SamTuckerMTNMAN
Member
According to my understanding there have been security and prosperity partnership cabinets formed already between Can Mex and US that have priority ability in the formation of law. Again what I have understood is that NAU laws can supercede individual nation/state laws just as national law in Europe does not surpass EU laws as a transnational organization.
The executive brance HAS signed numerous things into being without oversight, including the State Secrets Doctrine which makes oversight impossible by the judicial or legislative branches.
I would say realistically, that people will do whatever they can get away with. Hasn't that always been the case?
ST
The executive brance HAS signed numerous things into being without oversight, including the State Secrets Doctrine which makes oversight impossible by the judicial or legislative branches.
I would say realistically, that people will do whatever they can get away with. Hasn't that always been the case?
ST
Look at it this way
A (the Constitution) B (laws of the US) and C (Treaties) shall be the supreme Law of the land.
Lets take B. What does it take? Bill must pass in House and Senate, and be signed by Pres. It then becomes "supreme law of the land"
Lets take C. What does it take? Pres signs it and 2/3rd of congress ratify it. It then becomes "Supreme law of the land"
BUT WAIT! if B is unconstitutional, violating the bill of rights, it is struck down, supreme law of the land or not. Same thing with C, if C is unconstitutional, violating the bill of rights, it is struck down, supreme law of the land or not.
To interpret it any other way would be to declare any US law ratified by 51% of senate and 51% of house and signed by president becomes law capable of ignoring the bill of rights
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;
A (the Constitution) B (laws of the US) and C (Treaties) shall be the supreme Law of the land.
Lets take B. What does it take? Bill must pass in House and Senate, and be signed by Pres. It then becomes "supreme law of the land"
Lets take C. What does it take? Pres signs it and 2/3rd of congress ratify it. It then becomes "Supreme law of the land"
BUT WAIT! if B is unconstitutional, violating the bill of rights, it is struck down, supreme law of the land or not. Same thing with C, if C is unconstitutional, violating the bill of rights, it is struck down, supreme law of the land or not.
To interpret it any other way would be to declare any US law ratified by 51% of senate and 51% of house and signed by president becomes law capable of ignoring the bill of rights
WildeKurt
Member
I'd have to agree with akodo: If a law passed by congress can be ruled unconstitutional then so can a treaty. Laws are supposed to be difficult to pass, treaties more so, with changes to the Constitution the most difficult.
'Course didn't Congress give away some of it's authority when it agreed to the so-called 'fast track' approval for trade agreements? Couldn't it do the same with other treaties?
'Course didn't Congress give away some of it's authority when it agreed to the so-called 'fast track' approval for trade agreements? Couldn't it do the same with other treaties?
'Course didn't Congress give away some of it's authority when it agreed to the so-called 'fast track' approval for trade agreements? Couldn't it do the same with other treaties?
Congress can give away their own power, but not that of SCOTUS or the Constitution.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
NO. TREATIES MAY NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION.
This has been flogged to death.
Laws must be made in Pursuance, and treaties must be made under the authority of the constitution, and this means that they must be fully conformant with it.
" any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." asserts supremacy of the contitution and treaties over STATE courts, the object being to prevent states from opting out of peace treaties with say, France.
IF, and that's a big, wildy unlikely far flung IF, the consitution and all of our institutions fails to prevent, say, a treaty with Britain to Establish an American State Church, a treaty with Iran to establish hand lopping as the punishment for theft, or with the UN to establish disarmament of the citizens, or any other outrage, well then, so be it. Our .gov will have fully demonstrated it's breach with the people, and have declared war upon them, and that'll be that.
For all practical purposes, no one of y'all need to worry about that until "they" start killing or incarcerating THR moderators.
With a few exceptions, we're higher than any of y'all on their "todo" lists.
Really though, this thread is done.
General purpose UN kvetching goes to http://www.armedpolitesociety.com.
ACTIONABLE plans belong here.
This has been flogged to death.
Laws must be made in Pursuance, and treaties must be made under the authority of the constitution, and this means that they must be fully conformant with it.
" any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." asserts supremacy of the contitution and treaties over STATE courts, the object being to prevent states from opting out of peace treaties with say, France.
IF, and that's a big, wildy unlikely far flung IF, the consitution and all of our institutions fails to prevent, say, a treaty with Britain to Establish an American State Church, a treaty with Iran to establish hand lopping as the punishment for theft, or with the UN to establish disarmament of the citizens, or any other outrage, well then, so be it. Our .gov will have fully demonstrated it's breach with the people, and have declared war upon them, and that'll be that.
For all practical purposes, no one of y'all need to worry about that until "they" start killing or incarcerating THR moderators.
With a few exceptions, we're higher than any of y'all on their "todo" lists.
Really though, this thread is done.
General purpose UN kvetching goes to http://www.armedpolitesociety.com.
ACTIONABLE plans belong here.
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
