Home
 


Go Back   Kentuckiana Firearms > General Discussion > Legal & Politics & Religion

Legal & Politics & Religion Forum for all topics relating to law and politics including religion. 2nd amendment news and controversy here.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-17-2012, 07:33 AM   #26
Jay
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: N. Central Indiana
Posts: 236
Jay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mudcat View Post
I don't like it and can see nothing good coming from it. Legal or not doesn't seem to matter anymore.
In recent elections, only a small percentage of gun owners even bothered to vote. Considering that, "legal" is only what attitudes and control we gun owners leave others to declare.

Who do I believe? Well, I'd like to believe that adherence to our Constitution would insulate us from thugs like the UN. Would I bet my life on it ? No...there's too many variables. That being said, I won't run around like chicken little either. That would accomplish nothing constructive. I'll pay attention, address my elected officials, listen, develop a few contingencies, and do my best to be situationally aware. If things go south, call before you come over...

...as to the address my elected officials part, I sent this over the weekend, and called yesterday... if it suits you , feel free to use it, or modify it.

I post this not for approval, rather for information. My elected officials are quite familiar with my name, and those at the State level and below, know me by sight as well.

Sir,

If you intend for me to vote for you next election, you need to demonstrate that you will oppose, and lobby for all Senators to oppose the attempt to interdict our Constitution by the United Nations. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States should NEVER even be considered to be influenced by ANY other entity, of ANY other country, nation, or political organization.

YOU, and every other United States Senator took an oath to ".. protect and defend the Constitution of the United States ...."

... DO IT !!!...


You also need to lobby strenuously to get the UN the hell out of the United States, and the United States out of the UN.

The United States has supported the parasites of the world long enough.

That's about as tactful as I can get. I do deserve, and expect a response to this communication.

Respectfully,

Jay X XXXXX.
One of your constituents that WILL vote.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Freedom has a flavor the protected can never taste...USMC 8652, 2531, RVN Jun '67, - May 69

Only when our arms are sufficient, without doubt, can we be certain, without doubt, that they will never be employed............. John F. Kennedy

Some of my firearms
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 09:42 AM   #27
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 664
Busboy has a reputation beyond reputeBusboy has a reputation beyond reputeBusboy has a reputation beyond reputeBusboy has a reputation beyond reputeBusboy has a reputation beyond reputeBusboy has a reputation beyond reputeBusboy has a reputation beyond reputeBusboy has a reputation beyond reputeBusboy has a reputation beyond reputeBusboy has a reputation beyond reputeBusboy has a reputation beyond repute
Default

We KNOW that the UN is anti-America, anti-private firearm ownership, and very PRO-Oppressive government.

We KNOW that there are those in our federal government who are of equal minds with the UN, and will do ANYTHING to infringe upon the Rights of the American People.

There is no doubt in my mind that this UN treaty business is simply a way for those in the US who wish to destroy this country, to legitimize their dealings. We are fed constant messages about how treaties override our Constitution. We are fed constant messages about how We the People have no control or influence over our representatives in D.C. We are shown that all three branches of our federal government can not be trusted to adhere to the Constitution or protect the Rights of the People.

So none of the information and speculation of this UN treaty (or any of them) surprises me.

But what can We the People do?

1) Obviously we have some influence over the federal reps. So it is important to keep the heat on them, with letters/calls. Even if some folks claim that elections don't matter, they obviously matter to those in office. If they did not matter, they would never pander to the People, they could simply do what they wanted and ignore the People, not even giving lip service to the issues.

2) If we understand that our Founders gave us several layers, or tools, to protect and preserve our Freedoms and Liberties, then we can use these layers to our advantage.

Mainly, we have a very large influence/control over our state and local governments. This level of government has proven very effective in protecting the Rights of the People, against the abuse of the federal government.

On this specific issue, we have many states who have introduced (42 total, I believe), and 8 who have passed into law, the Firearms Freedom Act: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/null...s-freedom-act/

So the People of this country, in the various states, are working on the state level to preserve their Rights, as the federal level has so abandoned the Foundational Constitutional principles of this country.

One interesting aspect which I have yet to see promoted is further leveraging of the state levels against the federal level. We read about letters from Senators, which other Senators may sign on to, stating a position or opposition to some issue. However, something which would carry a great bit of weight, is if the State level representatives would submit and sign on to similar letters.

The State reps represent that same People the federal reps do. Also, the state reps have a better feel of will of the People, because they are closer and more accessible to the People. Further, the federal reps may get hundreds, or thousands of letters from individual People in their districts, but they are only single letters each, and often "form letters" from single organizations like GOA or NRA.

A letter from a bunch of state level reps, is a letter from peers, those in the "profession". Look at your profession. If you got some letters complaining about your business or operation from people who have no experience or clue about what you do, you might give them some validity and consideration. However, if you received several letters/phone calls from people who had experience and knowledge of your business, you would find more interest and value in those.

Also, the State reps also have a more direct contact with the People who vote for both State and federal reps. The State reps, if they truly feel they understand the will of the People in their districts, can influence hundreds to thousands of votes, for the federal rep. Also the State reps, which ultimately make up the core of the State political parties, are relied upon by the federal reps to help set up meetings/donor events, around their district.

The State reps can have a much greater impact upon the federal reps than individual People, or groups.

Further, the State reps will be governed by the same laws the feds pass, unlike the federal reps, so they have a vested interest in seeing things done properly.

On top of all of this, the State reps hold a stick, or perhaps better put, a barrier, to the implementation of these unConstitutional federal laws/mandates/edicts. They can pass laws and State Constitutional amendments barring the application of these unConstitutional federal laws in their state, providing a layer of protection for the People of their state (and they are doing just that in many cases and on many issues already)

We really do need a liaison between our State reps and our federal reps. Frankly, this is an area were We the People can step up, set up and implement.

We really could get a group of individuals in our states to pool energies and resources, to watch federal issues, draft letters, then pursue getting our State reps to sign/sent these to the federal reps. There are many tangent benefits to this process as well, which could be further developed. But immediate positives could be that a new level of heat could be brought to bear on those making decisions on the federal level.
Busboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 11:32 AM   #28
 
Jason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 784
Jason has a reputation beyond reputeJason has a reputation beyond reputeJason has a reputation beyond reputeJason has a reputation beyond reputeJason has a reputation beyond reputeJason has a reputation beyond reputeJason has a reputation beyond reputeJason has a reputation beyond reputeJason has a reputation beyond reputeJason has a reputation beyond reputeJason has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dashammer View Post
Like I have been saying for several years now big time and I mean big time gun control is comming no way around it my friends. The only thing that's alittle strange to me is this UN treaty comming up so close to an election. You would think that the US would have tabled it until after the election. Only thing that comes to mind on this is the real powers that be all ready got the senate locked up and could give a sh=t who get into the white house or which party controls the senate. The NRA IMHO got gutted when the supreme court ruled no limit to political money from anythng or body can flood in, Those aholes don't need the NRAs money anymore. So get ready like the man said there is a slow train comming up around the bend.
The election is irrelevant because both candidates are fairly anti-gun. As far as guns, I'd be more worried about Romney than Obama at this point.
Jason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 12:27 PM   #29
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Berea,KY
Posts: 1,421
Dashammer has a reputation beyond reputeDashammer has a reputation beyond reputeDashammer has a reputation beyond reputeDashammer has a reputation beyond reputeDashammer has a reputation beyond reputeDashammer has a reputation beyond reputeDashammer has a reputation beyond reputeDashammer has a reputation beyond reputeDashammer has a reputation beyond reputeDashammer has a reputation beyond reputeDashammer has a reputation beyond repute
Default

All good points made by everyone. I guess we will wait and see. I hope my views are just that "crying wolf". That I truly hope is all it is.
Dashammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 05:57 PM   #30
 
shyne5021's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: louisville
Posts: 169
shyne5021 has a reputation beyond reputeshyne5021 has a reputation beyond reputeshyne5021 has a reputation beyond reputeshyne5021 has a reputation beyond reputeshyne5021 has a reputation beyond reputeshyne5021 has a reputation beyond reputeshyne5021 has a reputation beyond reputeshyne5021 has a reputation beyond reputeshyne5021 has a reputation beyond reputeshyne5021 has a reputation beyond reputeshyne5021 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

just seen this on a friends facebook thought i would share http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyfkQkchlu4&sns=fb
shyne5021 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 10:29 PM   #31
 
BigCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Louisville metro area
Posts: 511
BigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond repute
Default

[QUOTE=Jay;731011]Treaties Do Not Supersede
the Constitution

Im not sure that is accurate, doesnt appear to be that clear..


Might want to read this....

http://www.reasontofreedom.com/supremacy_clause.html
BigCat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 10:33 PM   #32
 
wash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bowling Green, Ky
Posts: 60,143
wash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I'm fairly confident that before I rest in peace from old age I'll have to bury some guns.
__________________
KY CCDW instructor.
Forum rules: Please read if you have not done so.http://forum.kentuckianafirearms.com...%2A%2A%2A.html

Guns are tools.

Quote:
Originally Posted by feralghoul View Post
I believe that is called a Kentucky reload.
Quote:
Originally Posted by feralghoul View Post
Have you ever shot an ak variant you didn't like?
All views expressed are mine and mine alone. The owner of KFA does not endorse anything I post.
wash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 10:36 PM   #33
 
wash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bowling Green, Ky
Posts: 60,143
wash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Romney would at least be burdened to pretend to be pro gun. Current Potus would not have same burden if elected for a second and last term
__________________
KY CCDW instructor.
Forum rules: Please read if you have not done so.http://forum.kentuckianafirearms.com...%2A%2A%2A.html

Guns are tools.

Quote:
Originally Posted by feralghoul View Post
I believe that is called a Kentucky reload.
Quote:
Originally Posted by feralghoul View Post
Have you ever shot an ak variant you didn't like?
All views expressed are mine and mine alone. The owner of KFA does not endorse anything I post.
wash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2012, 05:31 AM   #34
Jay
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: N. Central Indiana
Posts: 236
Jay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond repute
Default

[QUOTE=BigCat;731212]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
Treaties Do Not Supersede
the Constitution

Im not sure that is accurate, doesnt appear to be that clear..


Might want to read this....

http://www.reasontofreedom.com/supremacy_clause.html
Also from your link...

Quote:
The supremacy clause is troubling because it gives an extremely high rank to treaties, which by themselves, do not require the full approval of congress, but only the senate. However, the pattern is set that subsequent laws are always needed to implement the requirement of treaties. And these laws do require the approval also of the house of representatives, and must withstand supreme court review.
A given treaty, in and of itself won't implement gun control. That is not to say that down the road, the political balance could not pose issues. The simplest solution is for gun owners to shed their apathy, and vote. If ALL the gun-owners voted, we wouldn't have a problem.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Freedom has a flavor the protected can never taste...USMC 8652, 2531, RVN Jun '67, - May 69

Only when our arms are sufficient, without doubt, can we be certain, without doubt, that they will never be employed............. John F. Kennedy

Some of my firearms
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2012, 06:47 AM   #35
 
Rebel Panda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 4,113
Rebel Panda has a reputation beyond reputeRebel Panda has a reputation beyond reputeRebel Panda has a reputation beyond reputeRebel Panda has a reputation beyond reputeRebel Panda has a reputation beyond reputeRebel Panda has a reputation beyond reputeRebel Panda has a reputation beyond reputeRebel Panda has a reputation beyond reputeRebel Panda has a reputation beyond reputeRebel Panda has a reputation beyond reputeRebel Panda has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Either way, I'm sure I'll see y'all in the concentration... I mean "interment" camps, or in a mass grace some where... either way we're all royally ****ed in the future. We elect traders and cowards
__________________
I remember seeing a movie where only the Police and Military had firearms... It was called Schindler's list

262 Million innocent people murdered by their own Governments in the 20th century. So ask me again why I need an AR-15 and a 30 round magazine?
Rebel Panda is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2012, 06:56 AM   #36
 
BigCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Louisville metro area
Posts: 511
BigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond repute
Default

this is one theory of how he can use a technicality to work around it...



http://www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-e...aign=dmreports
BigCat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2012, 04:51 PM   #37
 
Rebel Panda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 4,113
Rebel Panda has a reputation beyond reputeRebel Panda has a reputation beyond reputeRebel Panda has a reputation beyond reputeRebel Panda has a reputation beyond reputeRebel Panda has a reputation beyond reputeRebel Panda has a reputation beyond reputeRebel Panda has a reputation beyond reputeRebel Panda has a reputation beyond reputeRebel Panda has a reputation beyond reputeRebel Panda has a reputation beyond reputeRebel Panda has a reputation beyond repute
Default

http://nagr.org/UN_PB_Video1.aspx?pid=fb2


congressmen from Georgia
__________________
I remember seeing a movie where only the Police and Military had firearms... It was called Schindler's list

262 Million innocent people murdered by their own Governments in the 20th century. So ask me again why I need an AR-15 and a 30 round magazine?
Rebel Panda is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2012, 05:58 PM   #38
 
Frailer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Flaherty, Kentucky
Posts: 954
Frailer has a reputation beyond reputeFrailer has a reputation beyond reputeFrailer has a reputation beyond reputeFrailer has a reputation beyond reputeFrailer has a reputation beyond reputeFrailer has a reputation beyond reputeFrailer has a reputation beyond reputeFrailer has a reputation beyond reputeFrailer has a reputation beyond reputeFrailer has a reputation beyond reputeFrailer has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wash View Post
Romney would at least be burdened to pretend to be pro gun...
Why?

Putting aside the fact he is the only one of the two candidates running to have actually implemented a (permanent!) gun ban, he has little to fear from most gun owners. Conservative "sheep" will swallow a few so-called "common sense" gun restrictions from a Republican, even though they'd squeal like a pig if a Democrat did it.

Neither candidate is our friend, and neither is appreciably better than the other.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopperDoc View Post
You have to listen to what I mean, not what I say.
Frailer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2012, 06:33 PM   #39
 
wash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bowling Green, Ky
Posts: 60,143
wash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frailer View Post
Why?

Putting aside the fact he is the only one of the two candidates running to have actually implemented a (permanent!) gun ban, he has little to fear from most gun owners. Conservative "sheep" will swallow a few so-called "common sense" gun restrictions from a Republican, even though they'd squeal like a pig if a Democrat did it.

Neither candidate is our friend, and neither is appreciably better than the other.
True. I guess I was thinking that he would be less likely to do anything major anti gun wise in his first term to help with re-election. But I agree, 6 of one half dozen of the other this November it would seem. I'll pull the lever for Romney though.
__________________
KY CCDW instructor.
Forum rules: Please read if you have not done so.http://forum.kentuckianafirearms.com...%2A%2A%2A.html

Guns are tools.

Quote:
Originally Posted by feralghoul View Post
I believe that is called a Kentucky reload.
Quote:
Originally Posted by feralghoul View Post
Have you ever shot an ak variant you didn't like?
All views expressed are mine and mine alone. The owner of KFA does not endorse anything I post.
wash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2012, 07:07 PM   #40
 
BigCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Louisville metro area
Posts: 511
BigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond reputeBigCat has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Im voting for the one I know for absolute sure is NOT a Communist.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/jamie-g...80%99s-mentor/
BigCat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2012, 07:22 PM   #41
 
wash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bowling Green, Ky
Posts: 60,143
wash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond reputewash has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Kind of my thinking BigCat.
__________________
KY CCDW instructor.
Forum rules: Please read if you have not done so.http://forum.kentuckianafirearms.com...%2A%2A%2A.html

Guns are tools.

Quote:
Originally Posted by feralghoul View Post
I believe that is called a Kentucky reload.
Quote:
Originally Posted by feralghoul View Post
Have you ever shot an ak variant you didn't like?
All views expressed are mine and mine alone. The owner of KFA does not endorse anything I post.
wash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2012, 08:45 PM   #42
 
greg53's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Scottsville
Posts: 186
greg53 has a reputation beyond reputegreg53 has a reputation beyond reputegreg53 has a reputation beyond reputegreg53 has a reputation beyond reputegreg53 has a reputation beyond reputegreg53 has a reputation beyond reputegreg53 has a reputation beyond reputegreg53 has a reputation beyond reputegreg53 has a reputation beyond reputegreg53 has a reputation beyond reputegreg53 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frailer View Post
Why?

Putting aside the fact he is the only one of the two candidates running to have actually implemented a (permanent!) gun ban, he has little to fear from most gun owners. Conservative "sheep" will swallow a few so-called "common sense" gun restrictions from a Republican, even though they'd squeal like a pig if a Democrat did it.

Neither candidate is our friend, and neither is appreciably better than the other.
+1
__________________
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson
greg53 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2012, 04:45 AM   #43
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Berea,KY
Posts: 1,421
Dashammer has a reputation beyond reputeDashammer has a reputation beyond reputeDashammer has a reputation beyond reputeDashammer has a reputation beyond reputeDashammer has a reputation beyond reputeDashammer has a reputation beyond reputeDashammer has a reputation beyond reputeDashammer has a reputation beyond reputeDashammer has a reputation beyond reputeDashammer has a reputation beyond reputeDashammer has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I agree either one is a piss poor choice on gun control and alot of other issues too. My big problem with Mitt and gun control is he is in the geopolitical group that has the most to gain by destroying private gun ownership that being the Ultra Rich and IMHO their drive to have a feudal system under the guise of a fake whorefied democracy. Can't have a bunch of serfs running around with weapons.
Dashammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2012, 10:34 PM   #44
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Garage / Basement / Bathroom
Posts: 126
Lashout06R has a reputation beyond reputeLashout06R has a reputation beyond reputeLashout06R has a reputation beyond reputeLashout06R has a reputation beyond reputeLashout06R has a reputation beyond reputeLashout06R has a reputation beyond reputeLashout06R has a reputation beyond reputeLashout06R has a reputation beyond reputeLashout06R has a reputation beyond reputeLashout06R has a reputation beyond reputeLashout06R has a reputation beyond repute
Default



"The fact that the NRA has succeeded in getting fifty-eight Senators to sign on opposing the Treaty is irrelevant. If Harry Reid won’t bring it up on the floor, it won’t get a vote. And, in the absence of Senate disapproval or a renunciation by the president, the United States is bound by the Treaty under the provisions of the Vienna Convention which we have both signed and ratified."

Lashout06R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2012, 10:46 PM   #45
Jay
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: N. Central Indiana
Posts: 236
Jay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond reputeJay has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Reid likely won't even bring it to the floor since he knows there are 58 dissenting vote against him. If memory serves, any treaty requires a 2/3 majority vote to be ratified. Therefore, 58 dissenting votes would be quite relevant.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Freedom has a flavor the protected can never taste...USMC 8652, 2531, RVN Jun '67, - May 69

Only when our arms are sufficient, without doubt, can we be certain, without doubt, that they will never be employed............. John F. Kennedy

Some of my firearms
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 08:09 PM   #46
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Lexington
Posts: 54
Shilo_00 has a reputation beyond reputeShilo_00 has a reputation beyond reputeShilo_00 has a reputation beyond reputeShilo_00 has a reputation beyond reputeShilo_00 has a reputation beyond reputeShilo_00 has a reputation beyond reputeShilo_00 has a reputation beyond reputeShilo_00 has a reputation beyond reputeShilo_00 has a reputation beyond reputeShilo_00 has a reputation beyond reputeShilo_00 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
Reid likely won't even bring it to the floor since he knows there are 58 dissenting vote against him. If memory serves, any treaty requires a 2/3 majority vote to be ratified. Therefore, 58 dissenting votes would be quite relevant.
Yes Jay, you are correct. The President has the power to enter into treaties with the consent of 2/3 of the Senate. You are also correct about the Constitution trumping treaties.
Shilo_00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 10:10 PM   #47
BMH
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Fern Creek, Kentucky
Posts: 344
BMH has a reputation beyond reputeBMH has a reputation beyond reputeBMH has a reputation beyond reputeBMH has a reputation beyond reputeBMH has a reputation beyond reputeBMH has a reputation beyond reputeBMH has a reputation beyond reputeBMH has a reputation beyond reputeBMH has a reputation beyond reputeBMH has a reputation beyond reputeBMH has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate.
I really don't understand why everyone gets worked up over this treaty. The UN treaty isn't going to trump the Constitution no matter how much people want to scare you into believing it will.

Last edited by BMH; 07-20-2012 at 10:12 PM.
BMH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 10:43 PM   #48
 
herose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Danville
Posts: 338
herose has a reputation beyond reputeherose has a reputation beyond reputeherose has a reputation beyond reputeherose has a reputation beyond reputeherose has a reputation beyond reputeherose has a reputation beyond reputeherose has a reputation beyond reputeherose has a reputation beyond reputeherose has a reputation beyond reputeherose has a reputation beyond reputeherose has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
"The fact that the NRA has succeeded in getting fifty-eight Senators to sign on opposing the Treaty is irrelevant. If Harry Reid won’t bring it up on the floor, it won’t get a vote. And, in the absence of Senate disapproval or a renunciation by the president, the United States is bound by the Treaty under the provisions of the Vienna Convention which we have both signed and ratified."
Yes according to Mark Levin, who is a constitutional lawyer, this is the truth.
__________________
"Make (your attacker) advance through a wall of bullets. I may get killed with my own gun, but he’s gonna have to beat me to death with it, ‘cause it’s going to be empty." Clint Smith
herose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012, 08:58 AM   #49
BMH
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Fern Creek, Kentucky
Posts: 344
BMH has a reputation beyond reputeBMH has a reputation beyond reputeBMH has a reputation beyond reputeBMH has a reputation beyond reputeBMH has a reputation beyond reputeBMH has a reputation beyond reputeBMH has a reputation beyond reputeBMH has a reputation beyond reputeBMH has a reputation beyond reputeBMH has a reputation beyond reputeBMH has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Ok, I'm a little confused on how this is supposed to work. How exactly is an international treaty going to "ratify" itself without a vote by the Senate or a signature from the President?

If you look up the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/ins...s/1_1_1969.pdf

It states a UN treaty is only ratified by the consent of a member state.
Quote:
(b) “ratification”, “acceptance”, “approval” and “accession” mean in each case the international act so named whereby a State establishes on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty;
Now using the definitions used by the UN in it's treaties.
http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Definitions.pdf
Only when a State accession's to a treaty does it not require a signature but still requires the approval of that States legislature.
Quote:
Accede/Accession: ‘Accession’ is an act by which a State signifies its agreement to be legally bound by the terms of a particular treaty. It has the same legal effect as ratification, but is not preceded by an act of signature. The formal procedure for accession varies according to the national legislative requirements of the State. To accede to a human rights treaty, the appropriate national organ of a State – Parliament, Senate, the Crown, Head of State or Government, or a combination of these – follows its domestic approval procedures and makes a formal decision to be a party to the treaty. Then, the instrument of accession, a formal sealed letter referring to the decision and signed by the State’s responsible authority, is prepared and deposited with the United Nations Secretary-General in New York.
So even according to the Vienna Convention the State still has to approve a treaty.

With that said, I cannot find anywhere in the Constitution where an international treaty can be approved without the approval of 2/3 of the senate and the signature of the president. A treaty cannot be approved without both. President Woodrow Wilson signed the Treaty of Versailles but it could not pass the Senate and it failed.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/..._Rejection.htm

Even if the treaty somehow got the 2/3 vote and the President's blessing it still wouldn't hold up to Constitutional muster because an international treaty cannot supersede the Constitution under Reid v. Colvert.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...4_0001_ZO.html

Quote:
Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

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; . . .

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.
So, back to my original question; how exactly is this treaty going to ratify itself and be enforced? Please show me if I'm missing something...
BMH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012, 10:42 AM   #50
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Lexington
Posts: 54
Shilo_00 has a reputation beyond reputeShilo_00 has a reputation beyond reputeShilo_00 has a reputation beyond reputeShilo_00 has a reputation beyond reputeShilo_00 has a reputation beyond reputeShilo_00 has a reputation beyond reputeShilo_00 has a reputation beyond reputeShilo_00 has a reputation beyond reputeShilo_00 has a reputation beyond reputeShilo_00 has a reputation beyond reputeShilo_00 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

BMH, you make a great point. I could not find any examples of a treaty that we are under that did not have Senate approval. I don't think that animal exists.

There are two types of treaties. Self-executing, meaning all the details of the agreement are in laid out and it does not need implementing legislation (but still needs ratification). Non-self-executing: needs implementing legislation passed by Congress (still need ratification).
Since Congress always wants their hands in every pot, I can't understand how a treaty would even be self-executing.

Take the Vienna Convention for example. In Youngstown Sheet & Tubing, the Court ruled that the "responsibility for transforming an international obligation arising from a non-self-executing treaty into domestic law falls to Congress, not the President. Since there was no authorization by Congress, the Vienna Convention remains a non-self-executing treaty. The President may not relay on a non-self-executing treaty to establish binding rules of decision that preempt contrary state law."

Ya, I had to look that one up. And once again, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Shilo_00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
RSH