Fast & Furious - What Did Holder Know - Page 2

Fast & Furious - What Did Holder Know

This is a discussion on Fast & Furious - What Did Holder Know within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; "What Did Holder Know"? Everything...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24
Like Tree9Likes

Thread: Fast & Furious - What Did Holder Know

  1. #16
    Senior Member Array rhinokrk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    Posts
    1,036
    "What Did Holder Know"?
    Everything
    Get the U.N. out of the U.S.
    Get the U.S. out of the U.N.


  2. #17
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    Except for the fact that the global ATT (Arms Trade Treaty) can not trump the Constitution including Heller and McDonald. If the scheme had not slipped out of control, it would have changed the environment of the debate which was the optimal intent.

    Obama may squeak in for re-election. With Republican Senate and House, he would be wise to find a new AG. If the new congress plays the impeachment card, he'll be one lame lame duck.
    Are you absolutely certain? You may want to study Article 6 of the Constitution...

    Does UN trump US constitution?

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I saw this while checking on UN gun treaty any thoughts?

    Monday, November 16, 2009
    Obama revives talk of U.N. gun control

    Obama revives talk of U.N. gun control: "Arms Trade Treaty"

    George Bush wouldn't have it, and George Bolton, his Ambassador to the United Nations fought it.

    What is it?

    It's the "UN Programme of Action on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons".

    Mildly stated as a series of "Whereas" and "Therefore", and professing the right of the "individual" to possess weapons for defense, this measure is cunningly designed to provide justification for 'states' (or nations) to rigidly control the commerce in small arms and ammunition to anyone who doesn't represent a state or a nation. (See UN A/Res/63/23, and UN A/64/228, and pp. 3-5 of A/63/PV41 for example.)

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton isn't Bolton, and President Barack Obama isn't Bush. Between the two of them, Hillary and Obama are deliberately moving this nation toward the signing of a treaty which would force the United States to accept the supremacy of the United Nations to dictate National Policy in regards to the Second Amendment.

    Here are the lead paragraphs to the WND article:

    Gun rights supporters are up in arms over a pair of moves the White House made last month to reverse longstanding U.S. policy and begin negotiating a gun control treaty with the United Nations.

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first announced on Oct. 14 that the U.S. had changed its stance and would support negotiations of an Arms Trade Treaty to regulate international gun trafficking, a measure the Bush administration and, notably, former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations John Bolton opposed for years.

    Two weeks ago, in another reversal of policy, the U.S. joined a nearly unanimous 153-1 U.N. vote to adopt a resolution setting out a timetable on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, including a U.N. conference to produce a final accord in 2012.

    "Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms," Clinton said in a statement. "The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area."

    Gun rights advocates, however, are calling the reversal both a dangerous submission of America's Constitution to international governance and an attempt by the Obama administration to sneak into effect private gun control laws it couldn't pass through Congress.

    This seems to reference to the "... international transfer of arms", but in fact it would affect the ability of every American to "Keep and Bear Arms". Or to purchase, exchange, trade or give firearms to every other person or merchant.

    This isn't a Paper Tiger. You may be asking: "What's the big deal? The Second Amendment protects our rights. What we agree to in terms of International Trade has nothing to do with us."

    The problem is that the United States is close to signing an International Treaty, and this is the single move which can immediately and irredeemably counter the U.S. Constitution, or any law.


    Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution reads:

    All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

    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.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

    In other words, if the United States (in the person of President Obama) signs this treaty, and it is ratified by Congress, then all existing laws ... up to and including the Constitution ... are over-ruled.

    Remember the words:

    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.

    That means exactly what it says.

    If we enter into a treaty with the United Nations, and that treaty is or can be interpreted as disallowing the purchase or ownership of Small Arms, then that becomes the Law of the Land and it cannot be reversed by the Constitution, State Law, or any court in America.

    This is exactly the kind of tool which any wanna-be Dictator would elect to impose his own private vision of a disarmed citizenry. In fact, I'm unclear on the process ... would it be necessary for this treaty to be ratified by Congress? Can the president sign this treaty and unilaterally impose disarmament on the strongest country on earth?


    Just remember, the man in the White House is a very learned expert in side-stepping Congress and has proven it several times.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    Fast and Furious is still an ongoing "Operation" it involves throwing expendable people into the firestorm as "fast" as they can at "furious" members of Congress so they can try to cover up just how high the feces trail goes
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  4. #19
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    The problem is that the United States is close to signing an International Treaty, and this is the single move which can immediately and irredeemably counter the U.S. Constitution, or any law.

    Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution reads:

    [A]ll 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.

    That means exactly what it says. [In other words, if the United States (in the person of President Obama) signs this treaty, and it is ratified by Congress, then all existing laws ... up to and including the Constitution ... are over-ruled.]
    In the first place, F&F is an Obamination for which he (Obama) should apeak plainly or take charge or responsibility for providing all facts that Issa and Grassley are requesting or show them to be on a witch hunt. So far, the preponderance of evidence is cover up.

    While there is a concern of trade restriction, you are misinterpretting the Constitution according to the Supreme Court. This site says:
    The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that

    1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.
    2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,

    3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.

    "This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

    This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading.

    The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

    "... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. 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 the 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 which even suggest such a result...

    "It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

    "In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."
    The U.S. isn't close to signing the ATT as the drafting is due to begin next year. This campaign season is a good opportunity for the Pro-2A candidates to stump, as thirteen Democratic senators are on record of advising, that the treaty exclude "small arms, light weapons, ammunition or related materials that would make the treaty overly broad and unenforceable". With Republican sentiment on the rise, trade restriction on popular firearms is a non-starter. Oh, and did someone mention F&F?
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  5. #20
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    Are you absolutely certain? You may want to study Article 6 of the Constitution...

    Does UN trump US constitution?

    - snip-

    In other words, if the United States (in the person of President Obama) signs this treaty, and it is ratified by Congress, then all existing laws ... up to and including the Constitution ... are over-ruled.
    Not so much.

    In Reid v. Covert (354 U.S. 1) in 1956, the Supreme Court held that no treaty may modify or abrogate any provision of the Constitution. The Court addressed the Article 6 issue thus:

    Quote Originally Posted by Justice Black, writing for the majority
    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. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [n31]It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

    There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [n33] For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:

    The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [p18] government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

    This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. [n34] It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.
    This is well-established law, and I don't believe that this administration - as much as it might like to - can get over that very high bar.

    Matt
    Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
    Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.

  6. #21
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that

    1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.
    2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,

    3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.

    "This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

    This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading.

    The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

    "... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. 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 the 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 which even suggest such a result...


    "It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

    "In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."
    I stand corrected. I apologize for my lack of knowledge of case law.

    I do agree that this is the time for Pro-2A candidates to display "their wares", and barring the advent of a third party, should be a shoe in.

    Remember though,
    "the U.S. joined a nearly unanimous 153-1 U.N. vote to adopt a resolution setting out a timetable on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, including a U.N. conference to produce a final accord in 2012".
    It concerns me that the final treaty could come about while the current regime' is in power.
    I do not trust the current adminstration any farther than I could spit. I remember all too well when it did not have the votes to pass "Obamacare", but by the time all of the "back room" deals were done, it passed.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  7. #22
    VIP Member Array miklcolt45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    @ Wits' End
    Posts
    2,818
    There is NO chance that the political weenies inside the halls of government entities like DOJ will ever make a decision without prior approval from up the food chain.

    Holder knew. Obama knew. The trick will be proving it.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliott

    The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
    Albert Einstein

  8. #23
    Distinguished Member Array morintp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    1,233
    Someone will take the fall for their boss. Anyone remember Scooter Libby?
    64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

  9. #24
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,860
    Quote Originally Posted by archer51 View Post
    I agree, in the military a commander is held responsible for the actions of the men below them. Of course I need to remember, inside the beltway there is no such thing as responsibility or adult supervision.
    Alas, our leadership in DC has forgotten (or never been told) that while authority can be delegated, responsibility cannot be.
    atctimmy likes this.
    Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
    Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

did holder know about fast and furious

,
did holder know of fast
,
fast furious walther holder
,
holder fast furious
,
what did holder in fast and furious know email
,
what did holder know about fast and furious
,
what did holder know?
,
when did holder know of fast and furious
Click on a term to search for related topics.