Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
US Gun Owners To Face Extradition And Foreign Prosecution
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 537343" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Giving assumption this is all true, I disagree with that blanket "it won't pass" statement as for one, Repub. Senator Lugar according to the piece is for this and therefore will bring some repub. votes with him. There might be a (count on on hand number) number of democrat senators who "might" oppose but the numbers still indicate IMO this thing could pass. All there needs is 67 votes and these cats have proven time and time again that they'll sell out if it means getting something back home for election time. Also republicans I'm sure will sell their vote for this to voters as a measure against the threat of mexican gang violence (immigration) and also the threat of weapons going to international terrorist (law and order/national security). The spin doctors will sell it no matter what.</p><p> </p><p>As for the 2nd part being unconstitutional? All other issues of debate aside once a treaty is passed and the President signs, it then becomes binding just like any other law and therefore the question of constitutionality becomes iffy if not entirely mute. Just <a href="http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/TREATIES.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">read </span></a>from the beginning to the discussion of the 1919' Thompson case and you'll begin to see very clearly why and how our constitution gets circumvented time and time again when we are under the illusion otherwise. Read further and you might see why social security one year earlier was ruled unconstitutional only to come back with full court support. This piece was written by a Huntsville Alabama Constitutional lawyer in case some here might object the opinion needs to come from an "expert!"</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p><p> </p><p>I think most Americans feel like you do Sober and on that premise, you nailed it. But I'm sad to say on the other part the deck is completely stacked against us. For years, these slimballs instead of amending the law of the Constitution, they used the law of Art. 2 Sec. 2 (oversight of the unintended consequences of the founders) to circumvent the very Constitution they were suppose to uphold and they've never let up.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 537343, member: 2189"] Giving assumption this is all true, I disagree with that blanket "it won't pass" statement as for one, Repub. Senator Lugar according to the piece is for this and therefore will bring some repub. votes with him. There might be a (count on on hand number) number of democrat senators who "might" oppose but the numbers still indicate IMO this thing could pass. All there needs is 67 votes and these cats have proven time and time again that they'll sell out if it means getting something back home for election time. Also republicans I'm sure will sell their vote for this to voters as a measure against the threat of mexican gang violence (immigration) and also the threat of weapons going to international terrorist (law and order/national security). The spin doctors will sell it no matter what. As for the 2nd part being unconstitutional? All other issues of debate aside once a treaty is passed and the President signs, it then becomes binding just like any other law and therefore the question of constitutionality becomes iffy if not entirely mute. Just [URL="http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/TREATIES.html"][COLOR=red]read [/COLOR][/URL]from the beginning to the discussion of the 1919' Thompson case and you'll begin to see very clearly why and how our constitution gets circumvented time and time again when we are under the illusion otherwise. Read further and you might see why social security one year earlier was ruled unconstitutional only to come back with full court support. This piece was written by a Huntsville Alabama Constitutional lawyer in case some here might object the opinion needs to come from an "expert!" :wink2: I think most Americans feel like you do Sober and on that premise, you nailed it. But I'm sad to say on the other part the deck is completely stacked against us. For years, these slimballs instead of amending the law of the Constitution, they used the law of Art. 2 Sec. 2 (oversight of the unintended consequences of the founders) to circumvent the very Constitution they were suppose to uphold and they've never let up. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
US Gun Owners To Face Extradition And Foreign Prosecution
Top