Go to 3:00 and listen closely...
Go to 3:00 and listen closely...
I think he is saying nobody is going to litigate away our constitution,If you really think about it our Military,Ative,Reserves,and National Guard units have sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States,and if it came down to it would never take up arms against their fellow americans who are fighting to maintain the Constitution and bill of rights that our Founding fathers and Military past and present have bled profusely for our way of life
Off-topic, but we need a button that says we agree totally with a statement but we in no way shape or form "Like" it.
Not so much a civil war but I was thinking opposition to the UN Blue Hats, 2/3 of Senators and the POTUS that think the US can sign away our birthright of freedoms in order to be part of the world community Kool Aid club.
I would love to see some Constitutional scholars, Judges, judicial decisions, etc. that state a Treaty does not trump a Constitutional guarantee. You would think that since changing the Constitution requires a lot more determined action than ratifying a treaty, such would be obvious.
Not every situation is the same. Had the reservists been ordered to disarm citizens that never caused any problems, and in a "saef neighborhood", I wonder what would have been done and said instead. You may be right, then again, you may be wrong. People are funny creatures in many respects.
I think he should have narrowed his speech to two words: "PXXX (urinate) off!"
Probably get censored for that one.
What went on during Katrina was an outrage. These kind of situations are exactly why we have the 2A. By disarming the citizens, they succeeded in making them helpless. Leaving them to the mercies of the looters, etc.
It's about time that LaPierre started talking with some courage. Even the NRA is a perpetrator of political correctness. Push is coming to shove, we'll see who stands up to the mark.
He almost had the guts to say 'use our freedom to defend our freedom'. He caught himself though.
Sadly, a United Nations treaty trumps the constitution and the law of the land (that's the LAW). We're well on our way to a one world government and economic system IMO. Here's just two examples of many: We the people (the Federal Government) have millions of acres of land that flys the UN flag directly below the American flag. Ever seen that and wonder what the heck that means? Me too, and I did allot of research on it. After cutting through all the smoke and mirrors, it boils down to this. We the people, can not do anything with that land without the permission of the United Nations. It is protected by the United Nations, therefor, it is not our land. Second example: There have been hundreds of our U.S. soldiers court-martialed for refusing to serve under a United Nations commander and refusing to wear the U.N. patch on their left sleeve. If you prove me wrong, I'll buy a round of cyber beers :image035:
Supreme Court rulings
The issue of whether treaties overwhelm the Constitution was specifically considered by the US Supreme Court in the case of Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). The Court ruled:
. . .no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. . . .
This court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the constitution over a treaty.
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. 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.
Note that the Court held that acts of Congress are legally equal to treaties. Acts must comply with the Constitution, so treaties, being on “full parity” with acts, must also comply. The Court continued,
No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on Congress or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the constitution.
Chief Justice of the United States Joseph Story wrote in the 19th century,
A power given by the Constitution cannot be construed to authorize a destruction of other powers given in the same instrument. . . . A treaty to change the organization of the Government, or to annihilate its sovereignty, to overturn its republican form, or to deprive it of its constitutional powers, would be void; because it would destroy what it was designed merely to fulfill, the will of the people.
The Founders’ thoughts
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison (a principal author of the Constitution) and Thomas Jefferson were clear that treaties were subordinated to the Constitution:
“A treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country, or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution" (Hamilton).
“I do not conceive that power is given to the President and the Senate to dismember the empire, or to alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority to have this power” (Madison).
“I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution” (Jefferson). (cite)
In other reference to the Treaty Clause, James Madison wrote,
What is meant by the supreme law as applied to treaties? Is it like those of the Medes & Persians unalterable? or may not the contracting powers annul it by consent? or a breach on one side discharge the other from an obligation to perform its part?--Treaties as I understand the Constitution are made supreme over the constitutions and laws of the particular States, and, like a subsequent law of the U. S., over pre-existing laws of the U. S. provided however that the Treaty be within the prerogative of making Treaties, which no doubt has certain limits.
No, it doesn't "trump the constitution."
A Google search will quickly turn up many sources which explain this. To cite just one example: Limited Government in Relation to The Constitution's Treaty Clause
An especially interesting piece of evidence supporting the conclusion that the Treaty Clause was intended and understood by the Framing and Ratifying Conventions not to authorize the President and Senate, by a treaty, either (a) to override the Constitution, in whole or in part, or (b) to make domestic law (as distinguished from governance of relations with foreign governments), was provided by a statement by Jefferson--presumably reflecting at the time the prevailing opinion among governmental leaders also and especially leaders in Congress--in his 1801 A Manual of Parliamentary Practice. It was written by him as Vice President, while serving as the presiding officer of the Senate. It was reprinted in many editions in the following generations, being incorporated in full in the "Manual" of the Senate and in the "Manual" of the House of Representatives (as to the part applicable to the particular body in each case). Use of his Manual to some extent continues at the present writing. In this guide, Jefferson stated with regard to the Treaty Clause and power:
[Section 52.] "Treaties are legislative acts. A treaty is a law of the land. It differs from other laws only as it must have the consent of a foreign nation, being but a contract with respect to that nation . . . 2. By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those objects which are usually regulated by treaty, and cannot be otherwise regulated. 3. It must have meant to except out of these the rights reserved to the States; for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole Government is interdicted from doing in any way." (Emphasis added.)
This brief review of even a small part of the pertinent, historical evidence is sufficient to make inescapable the conclusion that the Framing and Ratifying Conventions intended the Treaty Clause to be limited by the Constitution; that in order to be valid a treaty, like any Federal law (Act of Congress), must be in strict conformity to the Constitution, as amended. The pertinent evidence supporting this proposition is so conclusive that not to accept it would mean (to use Jefferson's striking phraseology in another connection) that human reason must be surrendered as a vain and useless faculty, given to bewilder and not to guide us. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly decided that the foregoing conclusion is correct, that the treaty-power under the Treaty Clause is limited by the Constitution as a whole; and the Court most recently confirmed this, upon full consideration, in the 1957 Reid case. [My emphasis.]
Note that the first sentence of this passage expressly states that treaties not only cannot override the Constitution, they cannot be used to make domestic law: they may only concern relations with foreign governments. Ratification by Congress doesn't mean that they become domestic law, just that Congress gets a say in whether a given treaty is adopted at all.
I dont give a good double damn what anybody says. Supreme Court, United Nations or who ever. By my God given rights as a free man, I will fight and gladly either shed or shed my blood to be free. Screw the blue hats, and the rest of the world.
AMEN !! To all he stated in his interview. I could not argue with any part of it.
I never thought in my lifetime, or even my grandkids, that I would see this....
Those who have said this is a 'joke', it can't happen here, they would never, etc and choose to ignore it.... need to wake up.
However you want to put it, they (Oman) etc. are doing their best to chip away at things..... otherwise... you would never have seen Congress ... taking up issues and voting on them like this :