The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
Exactly....a treaty cant override the Constitution.
It would certainly break my back, and make many citizens VERY angry. The proverbial "they" wouldn't like us when we are angry.Even if they got in into U.S. law, enforcing it would be another matter. It might just be the proverbial straw.
loadedliberal wrote:No. Not even close. This would be unenforceable first because it would need to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate and that ain't gonna happen. Second a treaty cant override then Constitution. Saying this is Obama "working under the radar" makes about as much sense as saying Bush brought down the towers. And this is not new this has been discussed for a while now and though in extreme unforeseen events this could prove a real threat it serves much better as a fundraising tool for the NRA.mamabearCali wrote:perhaps this is what he meant by "working under the radar" a left hook from across the ocean. Perhaps we found out just in time.
KaiserB wrote:loadedliberal wrote:No. Not even close. This would be unenforceable first because it would need to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate and that ain't gonna happen. Second a treaty cant override then Constitution. Saying this is Obama "working under the radar" makes about as much sense as saying Bush brought down the towers. And this is not new this has been discussed for a while now and though in extreme unforeseen events this could prove a real threat it serves much better as a fundraising tool for the NRA.mamabearCali wrote:perhaps this is what he meant by "working under the radar" a left hook from across the ocean. Perhaps we found out just in time.
You may want to read Article 6 of the US Constitution ...
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
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.
ETA - Although, activists will "interpret" the meaning of apparently distinct and clear words to fit their underlying ideological objectives - who knows whether this (stare decisis) will change in the future... At this point, we're likely only one Supreme Court Justice away from revisiting the 2nd Amendment, regarding an individual/natural right - so this might become moot, anyway."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
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. And how well is that working out? The Constitution seems to be overridden with impunity. Why would the UN treaty override be any different?loadedliberal wrote:KaiserB wrote:loadedliberal wrote:No. Not even close. This would be unenforceable first because it would need to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate and that ain't gonna happen. Second a treaty cant override then Constitution. Saying this is Obama "working under the radar" makes about as much sense as saying Bush brought down the towers. And this is not new this has been discussed for a while now and though in extreme unforeseen events this could prove a real threat it serves much better as a fundraising tool for the NRA.mamabearCali wrote:perhaps this is what he meant by "working under the radar" a left hook from across the ocean. Perhaps we found out just in time.
You may want to read Article 6 of the US Constitution ...
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
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.
What's the problem
AndyC wrote: Despite the fact that I'm a mere GC holder and not yet a citizen, I figure that because I also reap the benefits of the Constitution, someone can save me a space in the lines
