What does an international treaty have to do with the 2A?

[PNUT]

Now that just seems plain silly to me.
I've watched quite a bit of news on the tele and news on the Fox channel is by FAR the most thorough, fair and balanced of any news network in existance today. Try and take the time to compare the news stories, anchors, pundits, guests or whoever on all networks.
Analysis, questioning and the reporting of facts does not equal 'Hate Obamba' simply because others do not report it. And personally, I prefer it because I am not impressed by the overt fawning coverage of some networks or hearing about the 'tingle going up ones leg' when he hears the 'chosen' one speak.

Your Micheal Savage quote tells me all I need to know about how "fair and balanced" you might be. Savage does the same thing, he's so hysterical , he needs some male hormones to calm him down from his hissy fits.
I'm not talking about the news, I'm talking about the radio shows that are on all day. I don't know what other stations do, I listen to Fox . I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop, sooner or , of those guys is going to call the President the N word.
From day one it's been this seething rage and hostility towards Obama from some people, it can't be for something he's done, he hasn't done anything other than the bailout yet, it's always claims that he "wants" to do this or is "going" to do that, never stuff he himself says he's going to do.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[sgtD]

Presidents could sign many the "agreement" as long as the President doesn't use the legal term "Treaty". It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is. Don't get tangled up in the legalities of it all........its just an international agreement..Right ?

Correct. The President can make "agreements" with other nations that many times are enofrced as law through the departments of the executive and internationally. This is done much more than treaty making, for the very reason you alluded to; it needs no approval from congress if it is not specifically called a "treaty." Even if it was not the case in this circumstance, it does occur.

Executive orders can also affect policies such as trade with foreign countries without Congressional consent. (Ex: The Norinco import ban)

[MattInFla]

U.S. Constitution Article. VI. -

'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.'

*

Yes, however the case I referred to clearly (and correctly IMHO) holds that treaties are subordinate to the Constitution. A treaty may indeed carry the force of law, but only where it does not conflict with the Constitution.

The reasoning of the Court is, IMHO, absolutely clear - there is no reasonable way to interpret the Constitution that leads one to the conclusion that the Senate is empowered alter the Constitution outside the amendment process.

Matt

[MattInFla]

Folks, let's please remember the forum rules here. While you may certainly debate and refute another member's position, there is neither excuse for nor tolerance of name calling and flaming on this forum.

[Rob72]

Treaties are not on an equal footing with the Constitution, and no treaty can abrogate or modify and rights under the Constitution.

See Reid v. Covert from 1957.

Matt

Yet again, what Congress passeth, must be challenged in the SC to be invalidated. While the challenge is in-process, the duly-sworn are obligated to enforce the law. Obviously, if there is no challenge, the Legislature may do as it wishes, as is also the case if the SC ignores or declines to hear the case.

The Constitution is paper. Its mandates are only enforceable with iron. The question then becomes: who controls the iron...? Hence the importance of Sotomayor's position...

[Rob72]

Quote:
Whatever it takes to be able to criticize President Obama. Who cares about facts or truth ?

1) Obama is a Constitutional-relativist; the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the global legal concensus.
2) Obama and the democratic majority are attempting to create a socialist society (by definition: Government controls the financial processes and the markets)
3) The Bill of Rights applies only to the extent that it supports their agenda (ie, reintroduction of the "fairness doctrine", dismissal of charges against the Black Panthers for using intimidation tactics at the polls, etc., etc..)

It is certainly possible to continue with a litany of truth and facts. I would actively work to constrain and negate the efforts of anyone pursuing this agenda.

Socialism. Does. Not. Function. To. The. Welfare. Of. The. People.

[Hopyard]

. Don't get tangled up in the legalities of it all........its just an international agreement..Right ?

Look, any time an agreement which is short of a treaty is reached, its provisions can not be put into effect if any of them are inconsistent with existing law. And if the agreement stinks, it can be nullified by Congress; that is part of the system of checks and balances. Moreover, if an agreement has provisions that aren't consistent with the law, it can be challenged through the courts, something which is also a check on the executive.

The core problem here is that folks have too little faith in the two primary institutions of government; the executive and Congress.

Some come here to yell about the motives of each of these, but forget to take into account that the folks holding those positions were chosen by us at an election which was not in any significant way thought to be unfair, fraudulent, etc.---as has happened in the past; like 8-9 years ago.

We have a president who was elected by a clear majority of the people. Who won a clear majority of the electoral college. We have Congress critters who were elected, often in very vigorous contests.

It is wrong to come here then and say (straight face or otherwise) that somehow these folks aren't following the will of the people or our constitution.

Things are working exactly as they should be, but it is evident that you can't please everyone and there will always be a subgroup of folks that are unhappy with election results. That unhappiness however does not give anyone the 'right' to make up lies and propaganda, to distort reality, or to speak from utter ignorance because someone else said they heard so and such, or as in another thread here , to speak openly of rebellion.

No matter how much you dislike policies which may become law in the future, you must keep in mind that people ran on platforms, and were voted for based on what they said they would do, and there is absolute legitimacy to their acts when they do the things they promised. In fact, it is quite refreshing. It doesn't happen often.

[Hopyard]

1) Obama is a Constitutional-relativist; the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the global legal concensus.
2) Obama and the democratic majority are attempting to create a socialist society (by definition: Government controls the financial processes and the markets)
3) The Bill of Rights applies only to the extent that it supports their agenda (ie, reintroduction of the "fairness doctrine", dismissal of charges against the Black Panthers for using intimidation tactics at the polls, etc., etc..)

1 Response to item #1. I actually don't know if that is correct or not, but is is quite irrelevant. Throughout our history people have debated how to interpret the constitution and there have always been such arguments. These get settled when justices are seated and each chooses his/her own interpretative philosophy. I don't want to run this thread off topic, so I hesitate to mention the fact that MA is
presently suing the Federal Government, arguing that a strict interpretation of both state's rights and the 14th should make the Defense of Marriage act illegal. There will be plenty of strict constructionists who will someday figuratively choke if the courts agree with MA's argument.

2) The comment is so wrong that it is ludicrous. First, our constitution is silent on the matter of economic system. So even if it were remotely true that the present administration wanted to introduce a socialistic system, that would not prohibited. Second, the assertion is mere exaggeration and propaganda. We have a mixed economy. We have had a mixed economy almost from the very start. Otherwise, we would have had private armies, and private jailers, and no public schools, and no aid to small business, and no giveaways to railroads, and no land giveaways to homesteaders.

3) The bill of rights applies. Period. To whatever extent politics can intrude, the enforcement mechanism is clearly within the responsibiliy of the courts. If they abrogate their responsibility, which the courts do sometimes do, you can't hold that failing against the other two branches.

Your basic problem is that you don't like the election results. Somehow, you and other participants here seem to believe, contrary to the evidence (the vote) that your minority opinion is actually the view of the majority--- and if you didn't prevail it must be because of
corruption, or illegality, or unconstitutional processes, or conspiracy.

Has it ever occurred to you that you didn't prevail because your viewpoint is actually a minority viewpoint?

[mlr1m]

1 Response to item #1. I actually don't know if that is correct or not, but is is quite irrelevant. Throughout our history people have debated how to interpret the constitution and there have always been such arguments. These get settled when justices are seated and each chooses his/her own interpretative philosophy. I don't want to run this thread off topic, so I hesitate to mention the fact that MA is
presently suing the Federal Government, arguing that a strict interpretation of both state's rights and the 14th should make the Defense of Marriage act illegal. There will be plenty of strict constructionists who will someday figuratively choke if the courts agree with MA's argument.

2) The comment is so wrong that it is ludicrous. First, our constitution is silent on the matter of economic system. So even if it were remotely true that the present administration wanted to introduce a socialistic system, that would not prohibited. Second, the assertion is mere exaggeration and propaganda. We have a mixed economy. We have had a mixed economy almost from the very start. Otherwise, we would have had private armies, and private jailers, and no public schools, and no aid to small business, and no giveaways to railroads, and no land giveaways to homesteaders.

3) The bill of rights applies. Period. To whatever extent politics can intrude, the enforcement mechanism is clearly within the responsibility of the courts. If they abrogate their responsibility, which the courts do sometimes do, you can't hold that failing against the other two branches.

Your basic problem is that you don't like the election results. Somehow, you and other participants here seem to believe, contrary to the evidence (the vote) that your minority opinion is actually the view of the majority--- and if you didn't prevail it must be because of
corruption, or illegality, or unconstitutional processes, or conspiracy.

Has it ever occurred to you that you didn't prevail because your viewpoint is actually a minority viewpoint?

Your reply to #2 that if the Constitution is silent on a subject then the Federal Government is free to do it is backwards to what I understand it to mean. The Constitution lists the powers of the Federal Government. If its not there they can't do it.

The last point is also incorrect in my view. We elect our representatives by majority. Outside of that the will of the majority of citizens mean nothing. The Representatives swear an oath to protect the Constitution, not an oath to citizens.
That is a big part of the problem we now have. The politicians try to appease the voters in order to get reelected and ignore the Constitution.

Michael

[imatt]

I haven't read the entire thread, but did anyone mention the Rights of the Child treaty the UN pushes? It states that all children have the right to a gun-free home... which would trump the 2nd Amendment... you do the math.

[MattInFla]

I haven't read the entire thread, but did anyone mention the Rights of the Child treaty the UN pushes? It states that all children have the right to a gun-free home... which would trump the 2nd Amendment... you do the math.

It doesn't trump the second Amendment. It would conflict with the Second Amendment, and under the doctrine established in Reid v. Covert, it would be considered subordinate.

Matt

[Hopyard]

Your reply to #2 that if the Constitution is silent on a subject then the Federal Government is free to do it is backwards to what I understand it to mean. The Constitution lists the powers of the Federal Government. If its not there they can't do it.

Michael

There are areas which are neither specifically permitted nor prohibited. One could legitimately argue that those belong to the states, but the fact is, that isn't how things work.

Think about all of the cabinet level departments. Housing and Urban Development; Health and Human Services, Interior, EPA. There are no specific provisions for these yet they exist as part of the Federal government and have not been found unconstitutional--to the dismay of some.

We have and always have had a "mixed economy." I find it funny for example that the folks who sometimes complain here about welfare, or about not wanting to pay for health care, do not remember that
we once purchased about 1/3 of our present country from France, and then systematically allowed that land, owned by our collective selves, to be settled and given over to farmers, ranchers, homesteaders, to the then, poor. Was that not a redistribution of wealth--the same as what many complain about today?

The government must provide as it can for the common good. That is written within the constitution itself. Calling that function socialism or unconstitutional socialism does nothing to clarify the policy debate.

[torgo1968]

I haven't read the entire thread, but did anyone mention the Rights of the Child treaty the UN pushes? It states that all children have the right to a gun-free home... which would trump the 2nd Amendment... you do the math.

No one mentioned it because it's been brought up in about a bazillion threads before. It failed to pass under Clinton with a Senate that was much more hostile to 2A rights. It would be laughed out of the chamber if introduced today. It's a non-issue.

[obxned]

Absolutely nothing. No president, no congress, no supreme court can limit our 2nd Amendement rights. That would be illegal under our Constitution. Attempting to violate the Constitution in accord with foreigners would be treason, and is punishable by death. I do hope everyone in Washington understands this.

[SelfDefense]

There are areas which are neither specifically permitted nor prohibited. One could legitimately argue that those belong to the states, but the fact is, that isn't how things work.

Our run of agreement, Hopyard, has come to an end. mlr1m is exactly correct.

Our nation is defined by the Constitution. It does not matter how you think things work or that the people [currently] allow the government to enact laws contrary to the Constitution. The way things work is DEFINED by the Constitution.

[UOTE]Think about all of the cabinet level departments. Housing and Urban Development; Health and Human Services, Interior, EPA. There are no specific provisions for these yet they exist as part of the Federal government and have not been found unconstitutional--to the dismay of some.[/QUOTE]

They exist at the pleasure of the Executive. They have no power other than the Power of the Executive. They are simply subordinates. They cannot make law.

We have and always have had a "mixed economy." I find it funny for example that the folks who sometimes complain here about welfare, or about not wanting to pay for health care, do not remember that
we once purchased about 1/3 of our present country from France, and then systematically allowed that land, owned by our collective selves, to be settled and given over to farmers, ranchers, homesteaders, to the then, poor. Was that not a redistribution of wealth--the same as what many complain about today?

Before addressing the issue that has been raised, the Louisiana Purhase was completely against the Constitution. Jefferson, the slimeball politician that he was, acted outside the enumerated powers in Article II. Moreover, the evil Jefferson actually dealt with one of the worst tyrants of the time to make the deal. And, no, it was not a redistribution of wealth to encourage population of the vast resources that we owned. Anyone could establish a claim unlike the redistribution of wealth of giving money from taxpayers to worthless, lazy slobs.

The government must provide as it can for the common good. That is written within the constitution itself. Calling that function socialism or unconstitutional socialism does nothing to clarify the policy debate.

You want clarification? How about the Founder of the Constitution and President of these great United States weighing in with his veto of public works legislation. Yes, I know he's dead and should be disregarded. That is what the liberals and libertarians utilize to espouse their agendas contrary to the Constitution. Perhaps Madison, the author, was unable to interpret the Constitution he wrote. I'm sure some would want the Supreme Court and the robed oligarchs to consider the issue.

Read and learn what our country is about:

Veto of federal public works bill
March 3, 1817

To the House of Representatives of the United States:
Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

"The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.

To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.

A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.

If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

James Madison,
President of the United States