silverbids.com— CIFTA is an international treaty signed by Clinton but not ratified. Since international treaties overrule national laws, if ratified, it will limit our 2nd Amendment rights.
May 2, 2009View in Crawl 4
The problems is that it depends on what part of the Constitution that Congress and the Senate want to uphold. Article VI, paragraph 2 actually stipulates on the issue: "...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, any Thing in the Constitution [of any State] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis added.]" This is what they are using to assign our Constitutional rights to the UN.Article II, Section 1, paragraph 7, the President is required to swear he will: "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Clinton obviously didn't do this when he signed CIFTA and Obama has shown that he is not inclined to do it today.Article VI, paragraph 3 requires all Federal and State officers to also swear:"...to support this [U.S.] Constitution..." They are not doing this.Article VI, paragraph 2, the latter half of which is quoted at the outset above, in its first half, says only three (3) pronouncements are "the supreme Law of the Land": (1) "THIS [the U.S.] Constitution," (2) "the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" (i.e., as permitted by, in conformity with, and to implement this Constitution), and (3) "all treaties made....under the Authority of the United States" ("under" designates that treaties are not over, not above, and not even equal to the authority of the United States granted to it by the States via the U.S. Constitution - but remain under, inferior to its jurisdiction).So, they are not supposed to, but they obviously intend to using Article VI, paragraph 2 and counting on the lack of public knowledge to so it. The same thing is happening with the UNCRC that Clinton also signed to give parental rights to the UN and the other one that Hillary is pushing to be ratified, can't remember the name, that assigns rights and control of our waterways to the UN.The DConstitution is in place to restrain the government. Don't expect them to enforce it except to further their agenda.
While I am not a lawyer, my interpretation of the wording is as stated above. Without the proper license from govt., these activities would become crimes. Maybe a lawyer could clarify the legal wording.
Perhaps Hillary's RFK remark was a Freudian slip after all. One revealing her intentions. The only problem is we need at least 600 others with similar plans to rid us of all the vermin in Washington.
And, in addition Bartboy:Did you ever think about what a militia was? Individual people using their own guns. If you don't agree with it, that's fine; you're allowed to be ignorant. But these words are from the Supreme Court:the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home.
bartboy919May 3, 2009
The senate does...
bartboy919May 3, 2009
Guns for state militias sounds fine to me. Are you a state militia?
mediablitzMay 3, 2009
Thank you for the reasoned response. You should send that straight to the White House.
emmettgolfMay 3, 2009Submitter
The problems is that it depends on what part of the Constitution that Congress and the Senate want to uphold. Article VI, paragraph 2 actually stipulates on the issue: "...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, any Thing in the Constitution [of any State] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis added.]" This is what they are using to assign our Constitutional rights to the UN.Article II, Section 1, paragraph 7, the President is required to swear he will: "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Clinton obviously didn't do this when he signed CIFTA and Obama has shown that he is not inclined to do it today.Article VI, paragraph 3 requires all Federal and State officers to also swear:"...to support this [U.S.] Constitution..." They are not doing this.Article VI, paragraph 2, the latter half of which is quoted at the outset above, in its first half, says only three (3) pronouncements are "the supreme Law of the Land": (1) "THIS [the U.S.] Constitution," (2) "the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" (i.e., as permitted by, in conformity with, and to implement this Constitution), and (3) "all treaties made....under the Authority of the United States" ("under" designates that treaties are not over, not above, and not even equal to the authority of the United States granted to it by the States via the U.S. Constitution - but remain under, inferior to its jurisdiction).So, they are not supposed to, but they obviously intend to using Article VI, paragraph 2 and counting on the lack of public knowledge to so it. The same thing is happening with the UNCRC that Clinton also signed to give parental rights to the UN and the other one that Hillary is pushing to be ratified, can't remember the name, that assigns rights and control of our waterways to the UN.The DConstitution is in place to restrain the government. Don't expect them to enforce it except to further their agenda.
normlsparkyMay 4, 2009
While I am not a lawyer, my interpretation of the wording is as stated above. Without the proper license from govt., these activities would become crimes. Maybe a lawyer could clarify the legal wording.
dimensioMay 4, 2009
"Guns for state militias sounds fine to me."State militias are not relevant to the current discussion.
Closed AccountMay 4, 2009
Perhaps Hillary's RFK remark was a Freudian slip after all. One revealing her intentions. The only problem is we need at least 600 others with similar plans to rid us of all the vermin in Washington.
latrosicariusMay 4, 2009
And, in addition Bartboy:Did you ever think about what a militia was? Individual people using their own guns. If you don't agree with it, that's fine; you're allowed to be ignorant. But these words are from the Supreme Court:the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home.