User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 4:01:19 PM EDT
A Treaty?
I was talking to a co-worker this week and she said that only a Treaty overrides the Constitution, that is why you see so many treaty's nowadays! Is this true?  If so WTF?!?!?!? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 4:03:38 PM EDT
[#1]
She's an idiot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 4:07:04 PM EDT
[#2]
well that makes me feel alittle better.... anyone else? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 4:07:58 PM EDT
[#3]
Ha, nothing overrides it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 4:09:34 PM EDT
[#4]
Yup. That's why the NRA and GOA are so concerned about the proposed U.N. gun ban treaty. Don't have Constitution with me to cite location
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 4:09:53 PM EDT
[#5]
Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. There is nothing higher. Also, for any libs reading....it is not a living document. You just can't change it how you see fit, whenever you see fit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 4:19:14 PM EDT
[#6]
Article VI, Clause 2
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 4:28:30 PM EDT
[#7]
Uh, no. Thats cause they'll ignore the Constitution, not cause it supercedes it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 4:37:13 PM EDT
[#8]
Yes, alaman is right. Treaties take precedent over the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 4:39:58 PM EDT
[#9]
that doesnt say a treaty overrides the Constitution; it says that the Constitution and treatiers are supreme law. doesnt say anything about one trumping the other |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 4:45:25 PM EDT
[#10]
SCOTUS has said it does
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 4:45:28 PM EDT
[#11]
in english please! |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 4:47:23 PM EDT
[#12]
You forgot to add California gun laws...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 4:49:02 PM EDT
[#13]
Sorry pal, but I don't think that is covered under the "United States of America" any more. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 4:49:17 PM EDT
[#14]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 4:49:56 PM EDT
[#15]
The thing that overrides the Constitution is the democratic party.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 4:50:54 PM EDT
[#16]
tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 4:56:27 PM EDT
[#17]
No, a treaty is not superior the U.S. Constitution.
It can supercede state law, federal law and state constitutions. But this is a complex area that is determined by many factors. So, a treaty could eliminate all gun rights existing under your state constitution. This would leave just the U.S. constitution as the only possible protection. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 5:00:34 PM EDT
[#18]
from my citizenship classes "the constitution is the supreme law of the land". end of story, treaties don't mean shit. now the problem appears to be getting the .gov and courts to abide by the constitution
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 5:03:35 PM EDT
[#19]
Is the Governor signing the Treaty? Can he go against his own State Constitution? How could the Federal government sign a treaty that would take away State constitutional rights that would be the same as the Federal ones that are guaranteed by the Constitution? Not making sense. some light reading. www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm Excerpt from a letter from U.S. Senator, Arlen Specter, (R. Penn.) to constituent, November 3, 1994. "Dear Mr. Neely: "Thank you for contacting my office regarding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. ... I have signed on as a cosponsor of Senator Bradley’s resolution [SR 70, which urges the president to seek the advice and consent of the Senate for ratification] because I believe that the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child is an appropriate step in the direction of promoting the well-being of children throughout the world. [he goes on to mention concerns that the treaty would subjugate familial and parental responsibility to an international entity, which he denies] "... Secondly, the Convention would not override the U.S. Constitution; rather, as in the case of any treaty, any provision that conflicts with our Constitution would be void in our country... " |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 5:08:08 PM EDT
[#20]
The only thing that overrides the Constitution....
That would be: Anarchy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 6:57:20 PM EDT
[#21]
Emanations from the penumbra override the Constitution. I'm pretty sure of it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 8:11:13 PM EDT
[#22]
It says that the Constitution and treaties of the United States are the supreme law of the land and that the "judges in every state" (read: all judges everywhere) are bound by the Constitution and Treaties of the United States, regardless of whatever a state law or constitution may say. In other words, State laws contrary to the Constitution and treaties of the United States shall not be valid. This says nothing about supremacy of treaties over the United States Constitution. 8th Grade civics, anyone? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 8:14:10 PM EDT
[#23]
The Supreme Court over-rides the Constitution all the time. Just ask the folks of New London Connecticut. The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 8:24:37 PM EDT
[#24]
Nothing *should* override the constitution! When that happens, our nation ceases to be.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 8:33:34 PM EDT
[#25]
state of emergency
martial law the cluster fuck that is New Orleans |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 8:58:11 PM EDT
[#26]
If that was the case then after they sign a treaty saying no more 2nd amendment, then why couldn't another treaty come along and be signed that says no more Article VI?
Treaties do not over-ride the US Constitution, for very obvious reasons. Not the least of which is the fact that if the Constitution provided the authority for a treaty to over-ride the Constitution, there seems to be a logical contradiction. 1. Take a piece of paper or a note-card or something. 2. On one side write "The statement on the otherside of this card is false." 3. On the other side write "The statement on the otherside of this card is true." Or you can just do it the other way and realize that anyone who thinks a treaty can over-ride the Constition is a fucking idiot. That would mean that the President could make a treaty with Canada that he is the supreme dictator of the United States and the members of congress are our new nobleman. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 9:03:47 PM EDT
[#27]
The only thing that over-rides the Constitution is the Constitution itself when it is ammended through the process outlined in it.
No one has the authority to enter into any agreements or treaties on behalf of the United States that contradicts the US Constition. There is a word for that. It is called TREASON. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 9:11:43 PM EDT
[#28]
Con Law 101
The US Supreme Court has ruled that a treaty does override the Constitution. The case I remenber involved the Federal regulation of hunting migritory water fowl. In the first case we read the Supreame court ruled that the Constitution gave the Federal Government no pwer to regulate The hunting of geese. But a few years later after a treaty with Canada was made regarding the taking of geese the US Supreme Court ruled that now the Federal Government did have the power as a direct result of the legally ratified treaty. I don't like it but it is what the Supreme Court says. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 9:14:22 PM EDT
[#29]
Go back and re-read everything after the last comma. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 9:18:09 PM EDT
[#30]
Yeah, treaties are at the same level as laws passed at the natioal level . Binding on states, but you can't amend the constitution by signing a treaty.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 9:20:08 PM EDT
[#31]
Yes, it does, where do you think the "Endangered Species", act came from??? MOST "environmental" laws were passed to bring the US in line with UN treaties......... Supreme court says yes, most here think different, according to your poll..  Nice publick edukation you all got, ain't it????
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 9:20:40 PM EDT
[#32]
The Federal Government has expanded it's "authority" and power based on treaties.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 9:23:11 PM EDT
[#33]
You forgot to mention that dribble dick, big headed, self proclaiming, POS of a mayor of New orleans.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 9:24:37 PM EDT
[#34]
"In United States vs. Pink (1942) the court held that a personal agreement (executive agreement) between FDR and Russian Foreign Minister Litvinonov, nullified provisions of the laws of the State of New York and the U.S. Constitution which forbid confiscation of private property without due process and just compensation.
These court decisions and the myriad treaty obligations contained in the United Nations charter and its subsequent treaties and “protocols”, along with the over 10,000 executive agreements regarding NATO alone, prompted Bricker to offer a constitutional amendment. The amendment read as follows, “A provision of a treaty or other international agreement which conflicts with this Constitution, or which is not made in pursuance thereof, shall not be the supreme law of the land nor be of any force or effect.” President Eisenhower and his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, vigorously opposed the amendment claiming it would hamper the president in conducting foreign policy. Why the president needs to be able to violate the constitution in order to conduct foreign policy was not explained. The final vote on the amendment in the Senate was 60-31 in favor of the amendment. This fell one vote short of the necessary two-thirds majority of those present and it was defeated. As things stand today, Supreme Court precedents have been set that would allow treaties and executive agreements to override the constitution giving the president and/or congress powers prohibited to them by the constitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 9:27:06 PM EDT
[#35]
The Constitution is a completely meaningless document that no longer holds any real power.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2005 9:27:42 PM EDT
[#36]
Sadly, you are right. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2005 9:16:16 AM EDT
[#37]
From above: ...and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Except for the part I put in red. |
|||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
