Question About NRA and Wayne LaPierre

This is a discussion on Question About NRA and Wayne LaPierre within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Nobody has disputed treaties have verbage that is contrary to the Constitution. The question is which has precedence. And the SCOTUS opinion I cited ...

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 90 of 90
Like Tree73Likes

Thread: Question About NRA and Wayne LaPierre

  1. #76
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,837
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Nobody has disputed treaties have verbage that is contrary to the Constitution. The question is which has precedence. And the SCOTUS opinion I cited earlier is not outdated like you said. As far as I know there has not been another ruling by SCOTUS that says a treaty trumps the Constitution. Sorry about your friend...but if he feels that the reason his car was impounded or whatever becasue of a treaty and not US law then I suggest he takes it to the SCOTUS. I am serious, they are the ones that rule on the constituionality of things. Not you nor I. Do you know of any SCOTUS ruling that says a treaty overides the Constitution? If not the previous opinion stands. Treaties do not.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #77
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    snip ~~ The question is which has precedence. And the SCOTUS opinion I cited earlier is not outdated like you said. As far as I know there has not been another ruling by SCOTUS that says a treaty trumps the Constitution. Sorry about your friend...but if he feels that the reason his car was impounded or whatever becasue of a treaty and not US law then I suggest he takes it to the SCOTUS. I am serious, they are the ones that rule on the constituionality of things.~~snip
    I understand the question and I understand the implications. The Constitution itself say's that treaties become the law of the land, which is why if the SCOTUS is going to rule that a Treaty can not effect US Law, I would like to see the actual case and full language of the Treaty as well as the Senate Ratification.

    That is why for anything the Senate feels should not trump the Constitution.. they have been putting in the language that the Treaty does not effect the US Constitution or US Law.

    As for the acquaintance, he was a doctor that worked at a Hospital I worked as an Armed Security Officer at, and when I left that area, to the best of my knowledge, he was going to fight it/has fought it as far as he felt was realistically worth the effort and he kept hitting a wall with each court telling him that the Treaty made it so and since Treaties become the law of the Land, once ratified.. He had no recourse.. that is why I keep watching for it to make it further, though doubtful now after 20 plus years. No one has been able to show me where what he was saying is BS.. and reading what I have been reading for the last 20 years confirms in my mind that he was not BS'ing.

    Just saying..
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  4. #78
    VIP Member Array varob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by Rugerguy View Post
    I don't need to do anything. There are probably some here that have been following LaPierre for years longer than me. I'm not going to write a college thesis on him. So I ask again, is there anyone else here that knows specifically what he spins?? I would be glad to look up after I know what he is suspected of spinning?
    Look, the bottom line is, when you want people to hand over there hard earned money, time and time again. There has to be a boogie man around every corner, or admiration in the NRAs case.

    If the NRA says " the war is won" we no longer need to fight, then people aren't going to send in their money anymore. Then LaPierre will be out of a job.

    Here's an example. During the last admin, there was no one who could be called the boogie man, so the UN became the boogie man... the UN?

    $30 bucks isn't a lot of money. The NRA does a lot of good, but they cross a lot of lines doing it.
    Toorop likes this.
    Don't believe what you hear and only half of what you see!
    -Tony Soprano

  5. #79
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,632
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    I have finally found some of the Treaties text and for all of those that I cited above.. the language is basically the same..
    It says.
    Resolution: Text of Resolution of Adivce and Consent to Ratification as reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations:
    Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of (whichever treaty it is dealing with) subject to the following understandings:
    (1) Nothing in this Treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.
    (2) The United States shall not consider this convention as the legal basis for extradition of citizens to any country with which the United States has no bilateral extradition treaty in force.
    (3) Pursuant to the rights of the United States under Article 7 of this treaty to deny requests which prejudice its essential interests, the United States shall deny a request for assistance when the designated authority, after consultation with all appropriate intelligence, anti-narcotic, and foreign policy agencies, has specific information that a senior government official who will have access to information to be provided under this treaty is engaged in or facilitates the production or distribution of illegal drugs.

    The impound I am aware of occured in the early 1990's so I am looking for a treaty prior to that date. The Treaties cited above were Ratified October 24, 1989.
    Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are driving at or how your are making your point, but what you posted above is neither
    the text of a treaty nor an indication that Congress civil forfeiture has anything whatsoever to do with the terms of any treaty.

    Now, I'm going to copy the one really important point in the text you provided and put it here where it is crystal clear:

    "Resolution: Text of Resolution of Adivce and Consent to Ratification as reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations:
    Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of (whichever treaty it is dealing with) subject to the following understandings:
    (1) Nothing in this Treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States."

    Now, what you are posting is not a treaty, not a law, but a resolution, and a Senate Committee's viewpoint on
    the conditions which must be met for a particular treaty to be voted upon.

    I just don't see how you are connecting the passage of civil forfeiture laws with any treaty obligation we have.
    suntzu and Toorop like this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  6. #80
    Senior Member Array Herknav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Waypoint 0
    Posts
    986
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post


    As as "Distinguished Life Member"* I do and will support the NRA. However, I reserve the right to criticize.
    Exactly. It's kind of like voting. If you don't pay your dues/vote, keep your mouth shut.
    I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth.--Steve McQueen

  7. #81
    VIP Member
    Array MrBuckwheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Down Incognito
    Posts
    6,337
    The NRA gets people "engaged" in order to keep the contributions coming. They do alot for gun owners.

  8. #82
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are driving at or how your are making your point, but what you posted above is neither
    the text of a treaty nor an indication that Congress civil forfeiture has anything whatsoever to do with the terms of any treaty.

    Now, I'm going to copy the one really important point in the text you provided and put it here where it is crystal clear:

    "Resolution: Text of Resolution of Adivce and Consent to Ratification as reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations:
    Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of (whichever treaty it is dealing with) subject to the following understandings:
    (1) Nothing in this Treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States."

    Now, what you are posting is not a treaty, not a law, but a resolution, and a Senate Committee's viewpoint on
    the conditions which must be met for a particular treaty to be voted upon.

    I just don't see how you are connecting the passage of civil forfeiture laws with any treaty obligation we have.
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    I understand the question and I understand the implications. The Constitution itself say's that treaties become the law of the land, which is why if the SCOTUS is going to rule that a Treaty can not effect US Law, I would like to see the actual case and full language of the Treaty as well as the Senate Ratification.

    That is why for anything the Senate feels should not trump the Constitution.. they have been putting in the language that the Treaty does not effect the US Constitution or US Law.

    As for the acquaintance, he was a doctor that worked at a Hospital I worked as an Armed Security Officer at, and when I left that area, to the best of my knowledge, he was going to fight it/has fought it as far as he felt was realistically worth the effort and he kept hitting a wall with each court telling him that the Treaty made it so and since Treaties become the law of the Land, once ratified.. He had no recourse.. that is why I keep watching for it to make it further, though doubtful now after 20 plus years. No one has been able to show me where what he was saying is BS.. and reading what I have been reading for the last 20 years confirms in my mind that he was not BS'ing.

    Just saying..
    Ok, now that what I had last said is below your question maybe you can read it again to understand the point. When the President signs a treaty if the Senate ratifies it.. Concurs with it, then if they did not stipulate provisions restricting its applicability, then the treaty if it conflicts with present laws, becomes the law of the land and overshadows those conflicting laws. You are correct that none of the treaties I found had complete text and that in itself is very disturbing. Those I had found that I was able to link to did have an exclusion phrase contained in them that precluded them from effecting existing laws. However.. What of those that I was only able to find a listing text of what the treaties were? They again did not contain the compete text of the treaty but likewise they also did not contain any exclusions. Which tells me that those treaties could easily have overshadowed existing laws creating violations of the Constitution that could no longer be challenged. Which is what my acquaintence was running into after trying to be a Good Samaritan and offering a stranded motorist a ride just to have his expensive vehicle impounded as having been the conveyance of a (unknown to him at the time..) drug dealer.

    This is why I was asking for the cite that you were using, which was not one that really dealt with a Treaty and is why the SCOTUS ultimately Reversed their own ruling. As soon as they reversed their prior ruling, that ruling and all comments made in that ruling became moot or reversed as well. I know that there are those some Far-Right-wing radicals who still try to use a reversed ruling to make a point by completely ignoring and trying to avoid letting on that the ruling had been overturned. NAGR is known for those tactics to inflame those who will look at the cite and think.. Oh it must be true.. I seek the truth.. I question what I am told especially when the links I am being provided do not come from fully credible sources. Which is why you will generally see me posting links to the information that I get and most are directly from NARA the National Archives and Records Administration, The Library of Congress or other Government resources. If you have a means to access the direct text of say Treaty Number: 90-7 which was ratified by the Senate in May of 1967 or the Treaty Number: 92-22 which was ratified in September of 1972 that amended Treaty #90-7 I would love to read them and see what their real effect was/is.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  9. #83
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    snip ~~ What of those that I was only able to find a listing text of what the treaties were? They again did not contain the compete text of the treaty but likewise they also did not contain any exclusions. Which tells me that those treaties could easily have overshadowed existing laws creating violations of the Constitution that could no longer be challenged. ~~snip ~~ If you have a means to access the direct text of say Treaty Number: 90-7 which was ratified by the Senate in May of 1967 or the Treaty Number: 92-22 which was ratified in September of 1972 that amended Treaty #90-7 I would love to read them and see what their real effect was/is.
    Taking a different approach, I looked through laws passed with the phrase of "SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS, 1961" Which was the phrase of the Treaty #90-7 and the amendment of 92-22 from September of 1972 in a search of US Laws at the Government Printing Office and came up with http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE...TE-100-4-2.pdf If you search it, you will find where Congress passed laws to conform to the treaty. If you bring that PDF up and then search for Sec. 2020 which should take you to page 312 and begin reading there you will get an idea of what I am talking about.

    I am still looking to find the original text of the treaties themselves but do feel I have found the treaty/ies at the root of the violation of the 4th and 5th Amendment problem when it comes to Drugs.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  10. #84
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,837
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post

    This is why I was asking for the cite that you were using, which was not one that really dealt with a Treaty and is why the SCOTUS ultimately Reversed their own ruling. As soon as they reversed their prior ruling, that ruling and all comments made in that ruling became moot or reversed as well. I know that there are those some Far-Right-wing radicals who still try to use a reversed ruling to make a point by completely ignoring and trying to avoid letting on that the ruling had been overturned. NAGR is known for those tactics to inflame those who will look at the cite and think.. Oh it must be true.. I seek the truth.. I question what I am told especially when the links I am being provided do not come from fully credible sources. Which is why you will generally see me posting links to the information that I get and most are directly from NARA the National Archives and Records Administration, The Library of Congress or other Government resources. If you have a means to access the direct text of say Treaty Number: 90-7 which was ratified by the Senate in May of 1967 or the Treaty Number: 92-22 which was ratified in September of 1972 that amended Treaty #90-7 I would love to read them and see what their real effect was/is.
    When did they reverse the ruling? Cite where SCOTUS has upheld that a treaty trumps the Constitution. Theonly thing you have been saying and quoting are parts of treaties and you are speculating on some of it. And it does not matter what is in a treaty. If a treaty said that no private citizens in the world can own guns and the USS signs it, it does not become the law of the land which trumps the Constituition.

  11. #85
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    When did they reverse the ruling?
    The case that Hopyard originally presented as supposedly being justification for his point was Reid v. Covert No. 701, October Term, 1956 which the SCOTUS itself reversed their own decision in 1957 when it was presented to them that it was simply a case of a pair of americans who had murdered their Military spouses overseas on what was american controlled US Military property and the Military had full right to hear the Case against the spouses in a Military Tribunal as the UCMJ being a US Congressionally authored legal system adequately fulfilled the requirements of due process. The original argument was not about a treaty.. but about Military Tribunals not being Constitutional Courts of Law and therefore the spouse's who killed their husbands not being military could not be tried by a Military Courts Martial.
    Look at the summary of the case at Cornell Law Reid v. Covert

    When reading, keep in mind SCOTUS generally used BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front) to simplify things. Then they go into argument and explanation.
    The BLUF in this case is:
    These cases raise basic constitutional issues of the utmost concern. They call into question the role of the military under our system of government. They involve the power of Congress to expose civilians to trial by military tribunals, under military regulations and procedures, for offenses against the United States, thereby depriving them of trial in civilian courts, under civilian laws and procedures and with all the safeguards of the Bill of Rights. These cases are particularly significant because, for the first time since the adoption of the Constitution, wives of soldiers have been denied trial by jury in a court of law and forced to trial before courts-martial.
    Now, if you read down just a little bit, you will find:
    (11) Subject to the provisions of any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international law, [p4] all persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces without the continental limits of the United States. . . .
    Further down we find:
    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; . . .
    emphasis added

    I will say this again, there are unscrupulous sites that will point you to incomplete information or overturned cases and will select text from the arguments
    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.
    trying to convince others that those were the Courts decision which they are not. They were part of the arguments or explanations being considered and not actual opinions of the court.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  12. #86
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    As a 50+ year member of the NRA it distresses me that La Pierre is pandering to the conspiracy theorists. Over the years i donated a lot of hard earned money to the NRA: That has ceased.

    My donations to the NRA-PVF may resume when La Pierre and the NRA get off this conspiracy theory kick. i will never again donate one red cent to the NRA-ILA.

    From Reid vs. Covert:

    Reid v. Covert

    Underlining mine:

    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:

  13. #87
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,837
    @LkWd_Don
    Look, could you parse information anymore to fit your view of something. This was discussed last year in depth and every talking head on tv from left to right who are Constitutional lawyers are all in agreement that a Treaty does not trump the Constitution. I have said I do not have a degree in law. But I have yet to see anyone that has credentials agree with you.

    This is what you quoted:
    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.

    In fairness I can parse stuff also. This is the LAST sentence in that paragraph that you qouted:
    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.

  14. #88
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,632
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    The case that Hopyard originally presented
    I think I'm getting credit for something I didn't write, and that there is some considerable confusion in this thread so I'm having a
    very hard time following it, and your points.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #89
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I think I'm getting credit for something I didn't write, and that there is some considerable confusion in this thread so I'm having a
    very hard time following it, and your points.
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Again, SCOTUS has ruled on this!!!!
    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.
    You are right Hopyard.
    Originally I had replied to paramedic70002 and have had both you and suntzu getting me confused as to whom was trying to tell me I was wrong at which time. The specific cite that "suntzu" was giving is one that was re-reviewed by the SCOTUS and reversed in 1957.
    Furthermore what he had quoted from that case was not the opinion/findings.. it was from the arguments/explanation. So, without anyone posting additional citations where SCOTUS has ruled against a Treaty.. the statement that the SCOTUS "regularly and uniformly recognized the Supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty"..(emphasis added) is simply bogus.

    Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2 of our US Constitution Gives the President the Power to sign Treaties but goes on to say that 2/3rds concurrence of the Senate is needed to ratify it. Then Article 6 Clause 2 covers that once a Treaty is signed/approved. It becomes the Supreme Law of the Land.. So in effect, anyone saying (especially the SCOTUS) that a properly signed and ratified(concurred) treaty is Not the Law of the Land is basically saying that the US Constitution is Unconstitutional. If a Treaty happens to violate existing US Code.. that code simply becomes repealed.. If the Treaty requires laws to be passed to enforce it.. then Congress has to comply as according to the Constitution.. The Treaty becomes a part of the Supreme Law of the Land. ..No IF's! ..No AND's! and ..No BUT's! The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

    I'm still waiting for someone to post citations from credible sources that would lead me to believe that everything I have been taught over the years is incorrect.

    I would love to be able to read the actual text of the various treaties that have been signed and ratified over the years. The fact that I all I can find is listings of Treaties Signed/Ratified and am having such difficulty in finding a way to read the complete text, is extremely disconcerting.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  16. #90
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    @LkWd_Don
    Look, could you parse information anymore to fit your view of something. This was discussed last year in depth and every talking head on tv from left to right who are Constitutional lawyers are all in agreement that a Treaty does not trump the Constitution. I have said I do not have a degree in law. But I have yet to see anyone that has credentials agree with you.:
    Please provide credible source cites. I have about bent over backward providing justification, it is now your turn.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

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

an armed society is a polite society lapierre
,
how much wayne pierre of the nra make ayear
,
i own guns but don't support the nra
,

is the nra worth joining

,

lapierre gun control 1990 statement

,
nra
,
nra previous statement 1990's
,

state concealed carry laws and supremacy clause

,

treaty 100-13

,
wayne lapierre gun control conspiracy
,

wayne lapierre survivalist

,
what did wayne lapierre say in the 1990's
Click on a term to search for related topics.