Ah, the good ol' UN...
I'm on an email list where I just received a warning about the implications of Missouri v Holland, which stated:
"No doubt the great body of private relations usually fall within the control of the State, but a treaty may override its power."Yeah, that's what the plan is.
Ultimately, the sentiment represented by that Texas flag--how much of it there is and how strong the resolution of those who hold it--is going to decide whether those who would impose disarmament by international treaty on us will triumph, or whether we who would defy and resist will send them howling into the darkness.
I vote for number 2, but then again, I can't even get sunshine patriots to send emails, forward links or toss a few buck Mike's way. I can't even begin to count how many have opined that all our work on Gunwalker has been futile--like any of the naysayers ever predicted things would get as far as they have. Just the kind of companions I want to share a trench with to buck up the old morale before any shots have been fired!
Maybe we should have just kept our mouths shut, and talked about things that are safe, pragmatic, entertaining and fun!
Seeing how much like pulling teeth it is to get some to lift a finger and do something easy kind'a makes me wonder at times who's up for real sacrifices and risks...
12 comments:
David,
Google Samuel “Sam” Whittemore. 19 April 1775, Capt. Whittemore, then 80 years of age, killed 3 Brits before being shot in the face, clubbed in the head and bayoneted 13 times. He survived his wounds and lived another 18 years to see the fruits of his labours and dreams become a reality.
It’s damn exasperating when those who should be paying attention don’t, and when we get the feeling that nobody seems to care. We’re fighting an enemy who doesn’t sleep, who has no intention of ever voluntarily relinquishing control, and who will twist emotions, statistics, logic, truth … ad nauseum into what-ever will advance his agenda.
Hell, David, when the SHTF even Jesus’ best friends found means to distance themselves from him. We really can’t expect any better
If the fight is worth winning we have to get in it, and stay in it until we win or can’t get up. This fight is worth winning. It needs doing, and if we don’t do it, then who will?
[W3]
David,
I vote number two as well even though I see those who do the same.
WWW,
Yes Sir and every April 19th since 2005 (would have earlier but did not start the blog until the end of April 2004).
Captain Sam is truly an American inspiration.
Don't lose hope, David. History may not record your name, or the names of those who stood with you, but you will have (and, I believe, already have had) a profound effect on that history.
As far as a treaty can go:
Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last, a treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so). 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. This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading. The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that, "... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. 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 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... "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. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. pgs 500-519). "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 Senate combined." Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. The Court continues with its Opinion: "This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument." The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear : TREATIES DO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT !!!
If they try, the armed revolution is the only alternative.
CarlS:
Better read about Missouri v Holland below, because it's also a Supreme Court decision and it affirmed that a treaty can effectively abridge states rights and the rights of citizens within the states. Note also the practical irrevocability of treaties and Thomas Jefferson's observation on that below.
Not only is it possible, but treaties in a real sense have overridden constitutional limits on federal power. From Missouri v Holland it appears a treaty extended the reach of congress to nullify citizen rights. A federal law changing the rights of citizens in states was held to be unconstitutional before the treaty, constitutional after the treaty. Therefore, despite the legal priesthood spin to the contrary, rights of citizens under the Constitution were altered by way of that treaty, "constitutionally". It wasn't unconstitutional because it was constitutional. That's right, circular reasoning. I have to suspect some similar mechanism could operate wrt a gun treaty.
Unlike legislation, and contrary to your assertion that it could be overridden my statute, such a treaty could probably never be reversed. An anti-gun treaty that cannot be reversed without the consent of the other countries that signed will never be reversed because obviously such consent will not be forthcoming. Under the Constitution, reversing a treaty without begging the cosigning countries for permission would seem to require a constitutional amendment, which are extremely difficult to get, and would not be forthcoming either because it could be blocked by one-third of the Senate plus one, or 1/4 of the states plus one, and there are enough traitors to block in either case.
All this is "constitutional".
Is this point of view mistaken, or a misunderstanding? Perhaps, but better safe than sorry. Suppose it's turns out to be mistaken (other than in an Orwellian legal priesthood sense), but the prudent doubt motivates folks to fight harder against a treaty. Or suppose a treaty passes and its 2A infringements are rejected by the Supreme Court. No harm done.
On the other hand, suppose folks don't resist enough because they were never told about Missouri v Holland or about the practical irreversibility of treaties. Suppose they thus rely on the good news position of Reid v Covert, and the good news position turns out to be wrong. Extreme harm done.
Now I'm going to quote Mark Terry below, who quotes the highly competent and loyal American attorney Larry Beecraft, who in turn quotes wikipedia and then wraps up. At least I think it's Beecraft quoting wiki. I may have inserted the quote about constitutional amendments. Can't remember. I had a lot going in Dec 09.
Russ Howard
Russ Howard continued:
From: "M. Terry"
Subject: Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty?
Wed, 2 Dec 2009
I saw this a while back. It has very sinister implications.
Any treaty can have an effect on the rights of citizens.
The UN international illicit gun control act they're trying to push through is equally sinister. Treaties are the giant hole in the Constitution.
Here's an excerpt brief from an attorney I've worked with - Larry Becraft - who has done a lot of research into the limitations of federal powers. It's a little long, but helps to understand the implications of treaties:
"Quite obviously, environmental legislation is inherently the proper subject of legislation by the state, and many states currently have such acts in effect within their jurisdictions. At the federal level, the jurisdiction of the United States is constrained by the operation of Art. 1, § 8, cl. 17 of the U. S. Constitution, and the multitude of decided cases regarding this part of the Constitution declares that the United States has territorial jurisdiction solely within Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves inside the States, and the territories and insular possessions of the United States. The possession of territorial jurisdiction is essential under this constitutional provision for federal municipal law such as environmental legislation to apply. Within the territories and possessions of the United States, the federal government possesses power similar to that of a state legislature; see Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 31, 75 S.Ct. 98, 102 (1954); and Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, 301 U.S. 308, 317, 57 S.Ct. 764, 768 (1937). Therefore, municipal environmental legislation enacted by Congress could readily apply in these areas within the jurisdiction of the United States. And logically, a consideration of solely this part of the Constitution would dictate a conclusion that federal municipal law could apply only within those areas subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
continued...
Russ Howard quoting Mark Terry Quoting Larry Beecraft continued:
A ready example of a case so holding is United States v. Shauver, 214 F. 154, 160 (E.D.Ark. 1914), which concerned the issue of where the Migratory Bird Act of March 1913 could apply. Via this act, Congress sought to extend protection to migratory birds by limiting the hunting season and otherwise placing restrictions upon hunting of these birds. As is only natural, upon adoption of this act federal law enforcement officials started strenuously enforcing it and here they had arrested Shauver in Arkansas for shooting and killing migratory birds. Shauver moved to dismiss the indictment filed against him on the grounds that the act contravened the 10th Amendment by invading the jurisdiction of the states upon a matter historically reserved for legislation by the states. In deciding that this act was unconstitutional, Judge Trieber noted that the common law provided that the states essentially owned the birds within their borders and state legislation was the sole source by which control of hunting could be accomplished. In so concluding, he held:
"It is the people who alone can amend the Constitution to grant Congress the power to enact such legislation as they deem necessary. All the courts are authorized to do when the constitutionality of a legislative act is questioned is to determine whether Congress, under the Constitution as it is, possesses the power to enact the legislation in controversy; their power does not extend to the matter of expediency. If Congress has not the power, the duty of the court is to declare the act void. The court is unable to find any provision in the Constitution authorizing Congress, either expressly or by necessary implication, to protect or regulate the shooting of migratory wild game in a state, and is therefore forced to the conclusion that the act is unconstitutional."
Notwithstanding Judge Trieber's decision, enforcement of the act did not stop and it was thereafter enforced within Kansas, where a fellow named McCullagh was arrested for killing migratory birds. In United States v. McCullagh, 221 F. 288, 293 (D.Kan. 1915), the issue of the constitutionality of the Migratory Bird Act of 1913 was again before a different court and it, relying upon its own research of the law as well as the decision in Shauver, likewise concluded that this act was unconstitutional:
"[T]he exclusive title and power to control the taking and ultimate disposition of the wild game of this country resides in the state, to be parted with and exercised by the state for the common good of all the people of the state, as in its wisdom may seem best."
Consideration of the above cases, which appear to be the only ones of that period, leads to the conclusion that some powerful federal officials desired to seek the enactment of this law to expand the scope of federal authority; the laboratory experiment selected for determining whether the judiciary would declare that Congress possessed power to control hunting was started within the heartland of America, Arkansas and Kansas. But here, those seeking greater federal power met their defeat, at least temporarily. To secure such power, these parties went back to the drawing board and what they developed did give them the power they sought."
Well I like to think I do my part, sharing links, tossing Mike and Joel Rosenberg (and now his widow) $5 - $10 on most paydays, but I don't see anything substantive (like people going to prison, or the ATF being reined in) coming out of Gunwalker. I really, truly appreciate the incredible amounts of work you and Mike and a few others have put into this, and I think it is tremendously beneficial for Fudds and fence-sitters to see the ATF (and DoJ for that matter) upper echelons for the high-handed, arrogant, murderous thugs that they are, but I just don't foresee anything but a whitewash.
i been tossing bux at ron paul, i think he likes gun rights. :D gonna toss more bux over time too. i hope that texas has not become so gelded that they just roll over on this.
Yeah and all that! But, the courts of today are more likely to hold as "constititional" just about anything that falls within the progressive narrative, even if it is clearly unconstitutional. For example, the current Supreme Court has more than one Justice sitting on it that maintains the Second Amendment is strictly about the right of states to have a militia, totally disregarding that part about the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I wouldn't rely on any past decisions, especially those that were given before about the time of Franklin Roosevelt.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ! It doesn't get any simpler than that!
What exactly was the purpose of Article V of the Constitution if not to allow for binding changes to the original body of that document?
Granted, Article VI says that treaties are to be considered the supreme law of the land. However, other articles within the Constitution and phrases within those articles also established rules and regulations that were to be supreme law (eg. the method of electing senators) that were changed by amendment(s).
I argue that any portion of the Constitution that was written and agreed to prior to any of the 27 amendments that served to change or clarify its original wording has been overruled by those amendments as was intended by the provisions of Article V.
Case in point: The phrase, ”… the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” was amended to the Constitution AFTER Art.VI and its supremacy clause was adopted and overrules that clause as intended. Take the time to read the preamble to the 1st ten amendments. It very clearly states the reasoning behind our Bill of Rights.
[W3]
Post a Comment