OT: Constitution? What the hell is that??

See: http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/un-gun-ban.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/un-gun-ban.html

Robert Baer <robertbaer_at_localnet.com> wrote in
news:s4adnemuquXDYfHWnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d_at_posted.localnet:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/un-gun-ban.html


ratification by the Senate would be the trigger for the Second Revolution.
It would be open-season on Congresscritters and the Exec.

Also,can a treaty override the Constitution? I do not believe so.
Particularly the Bill of Rights.

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 11:48:19 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik_at_abuse.gov
wrote:

Robert Baer <robertbaer_at_localnet.com> wrote in
news:s4adnemuquXDYfHWnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d_at_posted.localnet:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/un-gun-ban.html


ratification by the Senate would be the trigger for the Second
Revolution. It would be open-season on Congresscritters and the Exec.

Also,can a treaty override the Constitution? I do not believe so.
Particularly the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately I've heard that treaties are highest on the pecking
order of legal agreements. I don't know if that's really true or not.

I keep vicariously hoping for "open season"... where are the nutcases
when you really need their help ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

  See:http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/un-gun-ban.html

When guns are banned internationally only Americans will have guns...
start your stash NOW!

BTW:  Arizona is about to pass concealed carry WITHOUT a permit, or
instruction being required ;-)

Welcome to Arizona.  Now behave yourself or we'll shoot your ass!

On Feb 6, 9:02 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:23:19 -0800, Robert Baer



  See:http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/un-gun-ban.html

When guns are banned internationally only Americans will have guns...
start your stash NOW!

BTW:  Arizona is about to pass concealed carry WITHOUT a permit, or
instruction being required ;-)

Welcome to Arizona.  Now behave yourself or we'll shoot your ass!

Well, that _is_ what guns are for, after all - self-defense. But can
you be a little more specific about that "behave yourself" part? Do
you mean not tread on others' rights, or do you mean to do as I'm
ordered by you and your neocon cronies? That latter alternative would
be as bad as knuckling under to the Communists.

Robert Baer <robertbaer_at_localnet.com> wrote in
news:s4adnemuquXDYfHWnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d_at_posted.localnet:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/un-gun-ban.html


ratification by the Senate would be the trigger for the Second Revolution.
It would be open-season on Congresscritters and the Exec.

Also,can a treaty override the Constitution? I do not believe so.
Particularly the Bill of Rights.

SOP so far is that treaties have, where in "conflict" with any Fed or

On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:23:19 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer_at_localnet.com> wrote:

See: http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/un-gun-ban.html

When guns are banned internationally only Americans will have guns...
start your stash NOW!

BTW: Arizona is about to pass concealed carry WITHOUT a permit, or
instruction being required ;-)

Welcome to Arizona. Now behave yourself or we'll shoot your ass!

I've read (somewhere)that treaties have "all the force of law",but I cannot
envision anything overriding the Constitution,the Supreme Law of the US.
If someone could point me to language in the Constitution saying that
treaties overrride or supercede the Constitution,I'd reconsider.

In article <Xns9D179AE1EA354jyaniklocalnetcom_at_216.168.3.44>,
jyanik_at_abuse.gov says...
I've read (somewhere)that treaties have "all the force of law",but I cannot
envision anything overriding the Constitution,the Supreme Law of the US.
If someone could point me to language in the Constitution saying that
treaties overrride or supercede the Constitution,I'd reconsider.

The fact is, a treaty is considered an act of Congress, and as such can
be deemed unconstitutional by the courts.

Justice Holmes wrote in Missouri v. Holland ''Acts of Congress are the
supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution,
while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of
the United States. It is open to question whether the authority of the
United States means more than the formal acts prescribed to make the
convention.''

From :
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/limited_gov_trea
ty.htm

The Constitution is supreme over laws and treaties; it expressly states
(Article VI, Section 2) that: "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 . . ." This means that any such Law
(Act of Congress) which violates the Constitution is automatically made
null and void to start with--nullified by the Constitution itself--and
therefore cannot be a part of the "supreme Law of the Land." This is
also true as to treaties.

The words say "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the

WangoTango wrote:
In article <Xns9D179AE1EA354jyaniklocalnetcom_at_216.168.3.44>,
jyanik_at_abuse.gov says...
I've read (somewhere)that treaties have "all the force of law",but I
cannot envision anything overriding the Constitution,the Supreme Law of
the US.
If someone could point me to language in the Constitution saying that
treaties overrride or supercede the Constitution,I'd reconsider.

The fact is, a treaty is considered an act of Congress, and as such can
be deemed unconstitutional by the courts.

Justice Holmes wrote in Missouri v. Holland ''Acts of Congress are the
supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution,
while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the
United States. It is open to question whether the authority of the United
States means more than the formal acts prescribed to make the
convention.''

From :
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/limited_gov_trea
ty.htm

The Constitution is supreme over laws and treaties; it expressly states
(Article VI, Section 2) that: "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 . . ." This means that any such Law
(Act of Congress) which violates the Constitution is automatically made
null and void to start with--nullified by the Constitution itself--and
therefore cannot be a part of the "supreme Law of the Land." This is also
true as to treaties.

The words say "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land".
Now how the heck do you ignore that eXplicit statement that treaties ARE
the supreme law of the land?
It is plain from that wording that they are NOT unconstitutional.

WangoTango wrote:
In article <Xns9D179AE1EA354jyaniklocalnetcom_at_216.168.3.44>,
jyanik_at_abuse.gov says...
I've read (somewhere)that treaties have "all the force of law",but I
cannot envision anything overriding the Constitution,the Supreme Law
of the US. If someone could point me to language in the Constitution
saying that treaties overrride or supercede the Constitution,I'd
reconsider.

The fact is, a treaty is considered an act of Congress, and as such
can be deemed unconstitutional by the courts.

Justice Holmes wrote in Missouri v. Holland ''Acts of Congress are
the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the
Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under
the authority of the United States. It is open to question whether
the authority of the United States means more than the formal acts
prescribed to make the convention.''

From :
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/limited_gov_tr
ea ty.htm

The Constitution is supreme over laws and treaties; it expressly
states (Article VI, Section 2) that: "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 . . ." This means
that any such Law (Act of Congress) which violates the Constitution
is automatically made null and void to start with--nullified by the
Constitution itself--and therefore cannot be a part of the "supreme
Law of the Land." This is also true as to treaties.

The words say "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land".
Now how the heck do you ignore that eXplicit statement that
treaties
ARE the supreme law of the land?
It is plain from that wording that they are NOT unconstitutional.

But who really cares about the law nowadays?

Which president starting with Nixon, has followed the law as described

Andrew wrote:

But who really cares about the law nowadays?

Which president starting with Nixon, has followed the law as described
by the constitution.

Which president starting with Nixon, has made up their own
interpretation of the constitution.

don