Senate vote on Passing UN Gun ban

HollowPoint said:

The 16th wasn't ratified either. Made a lot of difference huh?

Click to expand...

Can't let this one go, sorry.

So, HP, are you of the Benson school (which I direct your attention to United States v. Benson, where he was declared a fraud by the district court and the 7th Circuit on appeal because his argument boiled down to "some states ratified the 16th with "States" capitalized and others ratified it with "states" not capitalized), or the even more ridiculous "Ohio wasn't really a state until 1953" school? Or is there a new snake oil salesman out there defrauding innocent Americans?

There are real, genuine government abuses out there, no need to invent patently absurd ones out of whole cloth. Don't want to pay your taxes? Then don't, and go to jail. But don't trick people into going with you.

hvymax said:

The Constitution is one justice away from dead.

Click to expand...

You could not be any more correct.

The thought is horrifying.

hvymax said:

The Constitution is one justice away from dead.

Click to expand...

Remember, the true defenders of the Constitution are the armed men and women of the United States.

Give up your arms and that's when the Constitution stops having any REAL teeth.

ericahls said:

Remember, the true defenders of the Constitution are the armed men and women of the United States.

Give up your arms and that's when the Constitution stops having any REAL teeth.

Click to expand...

You used to have a point, but the will to resist was removed decades ago. Now they are simply " tidying up" by taking away toys (guns) from a bygone age when people had spines.

IIRC, this wasn't for ratification of the treaty but rather a resolution urging the President not to sign it.

Seagrave1963 said:

Now that is of great concern and truly frightening for the future generations.

Click to expand...

It's almost time boys. All we need to do now is see who's gonna be in charge !

sfchoffman said:

It's almost time boys. All we need to do now is see who's gonna be in charge !

Click to expand...

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

Read the link. You just made the list, next time use this

It's true that the Senate vote is old, and that the POTUS hasn't signed this yet.

But he will.

And it's also true that the Senate isn't going to ratify the treaty. But that doesn't mean that there won't be strong and negative implications for us anyway, and that this isn't a significant assault on our rights.

These two short articles are worth reading. The first shows how, even without ratification, treaties can be and have been binding on the US:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/24/arms-trade-treaty-media-need-an-advanced-class-on-treaties/

And the second article shows how the SCOTUS members (the worst is Ruth Bader Ginsberg but she is not the only one) believes that international law should be used to interpret our Constitution:

http://www.examiner.com/article/supreme-court-justice-s-inconsistency-on-international-law

Things are not good, the moment the POTUS signs this, and even if the Senate rejects the treaty. But, as we've all said in the past, elections have consequences.

Anyone Named George Washington ?

If the US goes ahead and passes arms to Syria wouldn't that in essence be a violation of the arms treaty ? Or is it designed to curb the SALE of firearms and not just the act of one gov't arming one group of individuals in another country ? If so then I would argue that by giving another country arms we would be in fact attempting to facilitate the violation of the UN Arms treaty since EVENTUALLY they will need to purchase ammo from somewhere.

Tyeraxus said:

Can't let this one go, sorry.

So, HP, are you of the Benson school (which I direct your attention to United States v. Benson, where he was declared a fraud by the district court and the 7th Circuit on appeal because his argument boiled down to "some states ratified the 16th with "States" capitalized and others ratified it with "states" not capitalized), or the even more ridiculous "Ohio wasn't really a state until 1953" school? Or is there a new snake oil salesman out there defrauding innocent Americans?

There are real, genuine government abuses out there, no need to invent patently absurd ones out of whole cloth. Don't want to pay your taxes? Then don't, and go to jail. But don't trick people into going with you.

Click to expand...

So your proof of ratification are examples of enforcement from the bench??? Really???

In keeping with this thread thank you for proving my point - the UN arms treaty will be enforced the same way. Ratification or not. It's irrelevant. Our constitutional rights have been made irrelevant the same way. From the bench, and supported by enforcement.

Nice try at derailing my point.

In addition, when there is no rule of law at the top, when those at the top feel they are above the supreme law of the land (The Constitution) because they own the Judges and control the secret courts, what is lawful is no longer relevant and ratification of this treaty is not necessary - only agenda & enforcement matter: Remember everything Hitler did was legal and lawful according to 'some' Judge. Most Corporations pay little to nothing in taxes, illegal immigrants get over $43 million dollars paid to 23,000 people all at the same address, 1000's of bankers milk trillions of dollars illegally, weapons are given to drug cartels and our gov is arming al qaeda militants in Syria, blanket surveillance of everyone with out a warrant, probable cause or even suspicion and no one gets fired, indicted or even goes to jail? What's lawful is obviously irrelevant.

Perhaps you have never heard the term, "criminalization of the state"? That's were criminals occupy the chief seats of power in government and get to decide who are criminals and who are not.

Truth, Lie, right or wrong, lawful or unlawful are irrelevant. Only agenda matters and this UN treaty IS part of the agenda.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/why-obama-backed-un-treaties-cant-trample-constitution/

But the Supreme Court has more than once decided against the propaganda of the new world order crowd. In the landmark case Reid v Covert, the Court ruled”…no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.” In short, as “[the Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty,” the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, and treaties may neither supplant nor amend it.

Click to expand...

Wait to see what Obama does during the recess. That's when he likes to strik, when no one (the press) is paying attention.