Rand Paul: ‘Senate Just Rejected My Attempt To Reaffirm The Constitution’

[Oddball]

I don't see your difference. We commitment to a NATO common defense. That obligates congress to that action.

No it doesn't....The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the NATO charter.

If you want to withdraw from NATO so we can adhere to our constitution you defend Putin.

Get a new schtick....You warmongering fuckwits wore that one out six years ago.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

Our commitment to NATO does. Does randi paul want the US to withdraw from NATO?

Are you an American or are you a Democrat? All you need to see folks .

 

[otto105]

NATO is not, nor does it supersede, congressional authority nor U.S. sovereignty.

We committed to NATO. If we're backing out then we need to withdraw from that agreement.

 

[otto105]

No it doesn't....The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the NATO charter.

Get a new schtick....You warmongering fuckwits wore that one out six years ago.

So, you want a fake agreement then.

 

[Oddball]

So, you want a fake agreement then.

Such agreements cannot usurp the Constitution as a matter of law, dumbshit.

 

[Oddball]

We committed to NATO. If we're backing out then we need to withdraw from that agreement.

Then pack your narrow ass on an airliner and go die for another tyrant's dirt yourself, coward.

 

[Meister]

So, you want a fake agreement then.

He just wants us to follow the Constitution, Otto.
NATO does not supersede our Constitution on any day

 

[otto105]

Such agreements cannot usurp the Constitution as a matter of law, dumbshit.

That agreement obligates us to an action. If you want to pick and chose it will render all of our commitments meaningless.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I don't see your difference. We commitment to a NATO common defense.

Yes.

That obligates congress to that action.

Wrong.

If you want to withdraw from NATO so we can adhere to our constitution you defend Putin.

Don't try to bait me into your false dichotomy.

A president cannot supersede the Constitution with treaties.

Suppose the president got us into a treaty to ban free speech in America. Are you saying the treaty supersedes the Constitution?

 

[Natural Citizen]

He just wants us to follow the Constitution, Otto.
NATO does not supersede our Constitution on any day

Precisely.

Thank You!

That oath to protct and defend our Constitution, which our elected representatives swear upon taking office, used to mean something.

Clearly this immediate rejection by the Senate of Senator Paul's amendment indicates that very few take that oath seriously any more. Or even understand the document they swear an oath to at all, for that matter.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That agreement obligates us to an action. If you want to pick and chose it will render all of our commitments meaningless.

Wrong. They do not obligate us to action that is in direct conflict with our own Constitution. In fact, our Constitution FORBIDS it.

 

[otto105]

Yes.

Wrong.

Don't try to bait me into your false dichotomy.

A president cannot supersede the Constitution with treaties.

Suppose the president got us into a treaty to ban free speech in America. Are you saying the treaty supersedes the Constitution?

Congressional approval of treaties is required. The president can't just sign one.

 

[Meister]

That agreement obligates us to an action. If you want to pick and chose it will render all of our commitments meaningless.

It doesn't obligate us anything, otto.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Congressional approval of treaties is required. The president can't just sign one.

Congressional action to declare war is also required. NATO may obligate us to defend our allies but Congress MUST declare war. THAT IS THE POINT!!!

 

[otto105]

Precisely.

Thank You!

That oath to protct and defend our Constitution, which our elected representatives swear upon taking office, used to mean something.

Clearly this immediate rejection by the Senate of Senator Paul's amendment indicates that very few take that oath seriously any more. Or even understand the document they swear an oath to at all, for that matter.

And on 1/6/2021 it was....

Congress approved the NATO Treaty and it obligates us to an action. If you want to support Putin, then come clean and say you want the US out of NATO.

 

[BackAgain]

This discussion turns on the Supremacy clause of our Constitution.

Article VI​

. . . .
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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
. . . .

We know that it is NOT correct to say that all federal laws are the supreme law of the land BECAUSE we also know that such laws must first be made in “pursuance” of the Constitution. That is in fact the foundation of judicial review.

So why would a treaty to which the United States has authorized our acceptance somehow dispense with our own Constitutional provisions?

Yes, a NATO member nation is protected by the mutual protection commitments of the NATO agreement. But does that compel the US to enter a state of war without a Congressional Resolution formally declaring war?

Historically, that was a huge question. It is no less huge today.

 

[Natural Citizen]

And on 1/6/2021 it was....

Congress approved the NATO Treaty and it obligates us to an action. If you want to support Putin, then come clean and say you want the US out of NATO.

Otto, could you just please tell us where you learned that a NATO treaty supersedes the Constitution with regard to declarations of war involving the US?

Could you just tell us who told you that, please?

You made the claim very early in the discussion and still haven't supported your claim. In fact, you've actively avoided the expectation.

As I said, that's how functional debate works.

Thanks!

 

[otto105]

It doesn't obligate us anything, otto.

Are NATO countries obligated to protect each other?


The principle of collective defence is at the very heart of NATO's founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.

 

[Meister]

Are NATO countries obligated to protect each other?


The principle of collective defence is at the very heart of NATO's founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.

Other countries make their own framework, it's up to them. We have ours, no matter what you say.

 

[otto105]

Other countries make their own framework, it's up to them. We have ours, no matter what you say.

We (congress) entered into the agreement and for all it stands for.