You Have Been Warned: Obama Can Sign 2nd Amendment Rights Away

[bigrebnc1775]

I tend to trust this lady to a degree more than others because she's not partisan, she basis her information on facts. You'll have to watch the video to hear what she has too say. This will be a two part video according too her.

In the description box she says

I will be creating a video later today breaking down the Constitutional nightmare that has been developing and shaping this countries foreign relations in all aspects without our consent. And I will tell you about the man that tried to prevent this from continuing and unfortunately failed...

**CREATED BY AND PROPERTY OF RURdy4It**

[ame=http://youtu.be/8af303pyCOw]You Have Been Warned: Obama Can Sign 2nd Amendment Rights Away - YouTube[/ame]

I'll post the other part when she down loads the video later.

 

[The VOR]

Don't bother, it's bullshit.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I can't see the video on this computer, but there is a legal train of thought that if Obama signs certain U.N. treatys and the Senate approves them, they could supercede the Constitutional protections of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Don't bother, it's bullshit.

Actually it's not I've been dealing with her for a while now, she's pretty much factual in what she post on You tube. She's not partisan.
By the way did you watch the video?

 

[hortysir]

"Law, for the most part.....without being ratified"


???????

I'll wait for the follow-up video to see if she can support that claim

 

[Old Rocks]

I can't see the video on this computer, but there is a legal train of thought that if Obama signs certain U.N. treatys and the Senate approves them, they could supercede the Constitutional protections of the 2nd Amendment.

Really? You said a mouthful without the slightest referance to what you are talking about. Just hot button words. Legal train of thoughts. U.N. Treaty's. Supercede Constitutional Protections. 2nd Amendment.

OK, who's legal train of thoughts? What UN Treaty's? And since when does UN Treaty's supercede the US Constitution?

Say what you mean, man, don't just hide behind a bunch of hot button words for the ignorant. How about some links?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"Law, for the most part.....without being ratified"


???????

I'll wait for the follow-up video to see if she can support that claim

Here it is

[ame=http://youtu.be/lBNwq20-Nq0]Obama's Signature: ATT Ratification vs. US Constitution - YouTube[/ame]

 

[OriginalShroom]

I can't see the video on this computer, but there is a legal train of thought that if Obama signs certain U.N. treatys and the Senate approves them, they could supercede the Constitutional protections of the 2nd Amendment.

Really? You said a mouthful without the slightest referance to what you are talking about. Just hot button words. Legal train of thoughts. U.N. Treaty's. Supercede Constitutional Protections. 2nd Amendment.

OK, who's legal train of thoughts? What UN Treaty's? And since when does UN Treaty's supercede the US Constitution?

Say what you mean, man, don't just hide behind a bunch of hot button words for the ignorant. How about some links?

They use the Supremecy Clause of the Constitution,

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.

That by signing a U.N. treaty that would ban private ownership of firearms, and getting the Senate to ratify it, they could nullify the 2nd Amendment without having to amend the Constitution.

While I don't think that would work, there have been several left wing lawyer types I have talked to on other boards that beleive it would work.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then it is not "signing" away rights: it is done by the Constitutional process of treaty making and Senate ratification. That is Constitutional.

However, that will not happen. The President and the Senate will never do this, because they would all be removed in the next election, and they know it.

This was interesting.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then it is not "signing" away rights: it is done by the Constitutional process of treaty making and Senate ratification. That is Constitutional.

However, that will not happen. The President and the Senate will never do this, because they would all be removed in the next election, and they know it.

This was interesting.

There is no fucking way you have listen to either of the videos, shut the fuck up.

 

[Black_Label]

Then it is not "signing" away rights: it is done by the Constitutional process of treaty making and Senate ratification. That is Constitutional.

However, that will not happen. The President and the Senate will never do this, because they would all be removed in the next election, and they know it.

This was interesting.

There is no fucking way you have listen to either of the videos, shut the fuck up.

Obama can't just waive a magic wand to "takeeeeeeee yuuuurrrrrrrrrrr gunnnnnnnnzz!"

The right wing propaganda machine will keep lying about it, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Then it is not "signing" away rights: it is done by the Constitutional process of treaty making and Senate ratification. That is Constitutional.

However, that will not happen. The President and the Senate will never do this, because they would all be removed in the next election, and they know it.

This was interesting.

There is no fucking way you have listen to either of the videos, shut the fuck up.

He was responding to my post not about your videos.

I have a tendency to agree with him, but there is always the chance that some would try to do it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then it is not "signing" away rights: it is done by the Constitutional process of treaty making and Senate ratification. That is Constitutional.

However, that will not happen. The President and the Senate will never do this, because they would all be removed in the next election, and they know it.

This was interesting.

There is no fucking way you have listen to either of the videos, shut the fuck up.

Obama can't just waive a magic wand to "takeeeeeeee yuuuurrrrrrrrrrr gunnnnnnnnzz!"

The right wing propaganda machine will keep lying about it, but that doesn't make it true.

I love it "obama can't do shit" argument, Since when has the constitution stop him from doing anything?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There is no fucking way you have listen to either of the videos, shut the fuck up.

Obama can't just waive a magic wand to "takeeeeeeee yuuuurrrrrrrrrrr gunnnnnnnnzz!"

The right wing propaganda machine will keep lying about it, but that doesn't make it true.

I love it "obama can't do shit" argument, Since when has the constitution stop him from doing anything?

EXACTLY what has President Obama done that the SCOTUS as found to be unconstitutional?

No, I don't mean something the nutters say is unconstitutional.

I mean the real thing.

 

[g5000]

There is a lot of bullshit going around about the ATT. Manufactured bullshit. There was even one person here who claimed to have read it when it isn't even written yet.

The global arms trade is a very profitable one, and US arms manufacturers produce 40 percent of that total. Cracking down on arms getting into the hands of terrorists would make a dent in that profit.

Anyone making claims the ATT will violate the Second Amendment is lying. They are making shit up.

Ask for evidence. Ask for the relevant parts of the treaty to be quoted, and watch them fold.

Don't buy into their bullshit.

We know the NRA lies. That much was proven just recently with their claims about what was in the DOJ memo.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

For some people, just saying something makes it true.

bigrebnc1775 is one of those people.

 

[g5000]

Also, any treaty has to be ratified by the US Senate. Obama cannot sign the Second Amendment away with a treaty.

Don't be stupid.

You are being programmed to oppose the treaty before it is even written. That way, when the time comes for the US Senate to approve or disapprove it, you will be opposed to it without ever having read it. And you will swallow whatever piss you are told to swallow, again without ever fact checking it for yourself. Demagogue Senators and the NRA will make patently false claims about the treaty knowing you will never look for yourself.

Your stupidity is being very heavily depended upon. It is being taken for granted.

Just look at how many of topics about this treaty there have already been in the past year.

Your idiot skids are being greased.

You have been warned.

There are billions and billions and billions of dollars of business at stake.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then it is not "signing" away rights: it is done by the Constitutional process of treaty making and Senate ratification. That is Constitutional.

However, that will not happen. The President and the Senate will never do this, because they would all be removed in the next election, and they know it.

This was interesting.

There is no fucking way you have listen to either of the videos, shut the fuck up.

He was responding to my post not about your videos.

I have a tendency to agree with him, but there is always the chance that some would try to do it.

Remember that bigreb is mentally slow and emotionally damaged.

Yes, I listened to the videos, yes, it is theoretically possible, and, no, it is not going to happen.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Article 2, Section 2, US Constitution

The Treaty-Making Power

Legal Research Home > United States Constitution > The Treaty-Making Power

Section 2. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Court of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

THE TREATY-MAKING POWER

President and Senate

The plan which the Committee of Detail reported to the Federal Convention on August 6, 1787 provided that “the Senate of the United States shall have power to make treaties, and to appoint Ambassadors, and Judges of the Supreme Court.”260 Not until September 7, ten days before the Convention’s final adjournment, was the President made a participant in these powers.261 The constitutional clause evidently assumes that the President and Senate will be associated throughout the entire process of making a treaty, although Jay, writing in The Federalist, foresaw that the initiative must often be seized by the President without benefit of senatorial counsel.262 Yet, so late as 1818 Rufus King, Senator from New York, who had been a member of the Convention, declared on the floor of the Senate: “In these concerns the Senate are the Constitutional and the only responsible counsellors of the President. And in this capacity the Senate may, and ought to, look into and watch over every branch of the foreign affairs of the nation; they may, therefore, at any time call for full and exact information respecting the foreign affairs, and express their opinion and advice to the President respecting the same, when, and under whatever other circumstances, they may think such advice expedient.”263

Negotiation, a Presidential Monopoly.—Actually, the negotiation of treaties had long since been taken over by the President; the Senate’s role in relation to treaties is today essentially legislative in character.264 “He alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation, the Senate cannot intrude; and Congress itself is powerless to invade it,” declared Justice Sutherland for the Court in 1936.265 The Senate must, moreover, content itself with such information as the President chooses to furnish it.266 In performing the function that remains to it, however, it has several options. It may consent unconditionally to a proposed treaty, it may refuse its consent, or it may stipulate conditions in the form of amendments to the treaty, of reservations to the act of ratification, or of statements of understanding or other declarations, the formal difference between the first two and the third being that amendments and reservations, if accepted by the President must be communicated to the other parties to the treaty, and, at least with respect to amendments and often reservations as well, require reopening negotiations and changes, whereas the other actions may have more problematic results.267 The act of ratification for the United States is the President’s act, but it may not be forthcoming unless the Senate has consented to it by the required two-thirds of the Senators present, which signifies two-thirds of a quorum, otherwise the consent rendered would not be that of the Senate as organized under the Constitution to do business.268 Conversely, the President may, if dissatisfied with amendments which have been affixed by the Senate to a proposed treaty or with the conditions stipulated by it to ratification, decide to abandon the negotiation, which he is entirely free to do.269


260 2 M. FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 183 (rev. ed. 1937).

261 Id. at 538-39.

262 No. 64 (J. Cooke ed., 1961), 435-436.

263 31 ANNALS OF CONGRESS 106 (1818).

264 Washington sought to use the Senate as a council, but the effort proved futile, principally because the Senate balked. For the details see E. Corwin, supra, at 207-217.

265 United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 319 (1936).

266 E. Corwin, supra, at 428-429.

267 Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate, A Study Prepared for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations by the Congressional Research Service, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. (Comm. Print) (1993), 96-98 (hereinafter CRS Study); see also AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE LAW, THE FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES § 314 (hereinafter Restatement, Foreign Relations) (1987). See Fourteen Diamond Rings v. United States, 183 U.S. 176, 183 (1901).

268 Cf. Art. I, § 5, cl. 1; see also Missouri Pac. Ry. v. Kansas, 248 U.S. 276, 283-84 (1919).

269 For instance, see S. CRANDALL, TREATIES, THEIR MAKING AND ENFORCEMENT 53 (2d ed. 1916); CRS Study, supra, 109-120.[/SIZE]
The Treaty-Making Power - United States Constitution

 

[hortysir]

I can't see the video on this computer, but there is a legal train of thought that if Obama signs certain U.N. treatys and the Senate approves them, they could supercede the Constitutional protections of the 2nd Amendment.

Really? You said a mouthful without the slightest referance to what you are talking about. Just hot button words. Legal train of thoughts. U.N. Treaty's. Supercede Constitutional Protections. 2nd Amendment.

OK, who's legal train of thoughts? What UN Treaty's? And since when does UN Treaty's supercede the US Constitution?

Say what you mean, man, don't just hide behind a bunch of hot button words for the ignorant. How about some links?

They use the Supremecy Clause of the Constitution,

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.

That by signing a U.N. treaty that would ban private ownership of firearms, and getting the Senate to ratify it, they could nullify the 2nd Amendment without having to amend the Constitution.

While I don't think that would work, there have been several left wing lawyer types I have talked to on other boards that beleive it would work.

Article VI doesn't nullify Article V, though.

And I don't believe our Senate would ratify such an imaginary treaty.

Sorry, Reb, it's just a bunch of "if this" "and this" "then this happens" stuff.