Have you ever...

[82Marine89]

All this fuss over rep points?

Let's talk about boobies.

[Dilloduck]

IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER !!!!!

[Kathianne]

Everything has a beginning. It was written to include all those who lived in the colonies at the time. All colonists became US citizens. There were already many generations of colonists here. The years of being a citizen was to protect the country from someone coming from another country and acquiring a position of power. Especially Englishmen.

The voting age being lowered was a good thing. If a man could be drafted and fight in a war, he should be allowed to vote. However it was also designed to increase the number of people who would vote democrat as it created a huge voting block that the dems had been playing too for years up to that point.

What he said plus, they were working at the time under the Articles of Confederation, (which gave them barely enough authority to have the Convention and write the Constitution), and had just won the Revolutionary War, cutting all ties with England.

[MtnBiker]

IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER !!!!!

boobies don't matter?

[Dilloduck]

Let's talk about boobies.

Talk hell-----we need a booby pic forum !!!

[Said1]

Let's talk about boobies.

Sure. How big are yours?

[Dilloduck]

Sure. How big are yours?

eeeewwwwwww not man boobies again !!!!!!

[Yurt]

Did you have a rep agreement with Martin? A simple yes or no will suffice.

since he has already stated he has told me the answer:

his answer was "no"

i think its pretty clear who is telling the truth and who is not on this thread. acts volunteered this information against his best interest, e.g., he had nothing to gain to by it. acts did not call NM on it until NM called him a liar. then and only then did acts name NM.

there is a legal maxim (latin phrase) that applies:

uoya effa iriara

[5stringJeff]

It would temporarily Jeff, until the SC ruled the treaty unconstitutional imo.

We would be bound by the treaty via the Constitution until the treaty were proven to be unconstitutional.

I would hope that there is something in our system that could prevent the treaty from being ratified in the first place since it would violate the 2nd amendment, but i am not certain?

jd

So, if the UN passed a treaty, subsequently signed by the President and ratified by the Senate, that stated that all the governmental power of the US would be invested in a dictator for life, would the Congress then be dissolved until the Supreme Court heard the case? Would the Supreme court be dissolved, and the dictator "hear" the case?

[82Marine89]

Sure. How big are yours?

Want a link to a photo of them?

[JohnDoe]

So, if the UN passed a treaty, subsequently signed by the President and ratified by the Senate, that stated that all the governmental power of the US would be invested in a dictator for life, would the Congress then be dissolved until the Supreme Court heard the case? Would the Supreme court be dissolved, and the dictator "hear" the case?

I will repeat.... I would hope that there is something in place that would prevent such a treaty being signed/ratified...as that it would be unconstitutional...maybe the Supreme Court steps in before ratification???

Do you know if there is a procedure to stop it from being ratified ahead of time?

if it can not legally be stopped, then i would surmise by revolt of the people!!!!!


Jeff, it is hard for me to speculate on your scenario because i can't imagine that something like that would ever be ratified in the first place without a revolution taking place by the people.

BUT, as you said, it would not be constitutional, and would not usurp the constitution, so, i guess i am agreeing with you!

jd

[manu1959]

I will repeat.... I would hope that there is something in place that would prevent such a treaty being signed/ratified...as that it would be unconstitutional...maybe the Supreme Court steps in before ratification???
Do you know if there is a procedure to stop it from being ratified ahead of time?
if it can not legally be stopped, then i would surmise by revolt of the people!!!!!
Jeff, it is hard for me to speculate on your scenario because i can't imagine that something like that would ever be ratified in the first place without a revolution taking place by the people.
BUT, as you said, it would not be constitutional, and would not usurp the constitution, so, i guess i am agreeing with you!
jd

you should google un treaties that the us is a party to....nothing as drastic as jeffs scenario but troublesome none the less.....

[5stringJeff]

BUT, as you said, it would not be constitutional, and would not usurp the constitution, so, i guess i am agreeing with you!

jd

That's my point exactly!

[MtnBiker]

Yup, I tend to negative rep liars and people who negative rep me.

Are you trying to deny that you and few other members have repped each other to purposely gain rep points?

If you are trying to deny such I suggest you think about doing so. I do have access to rep comments and can prove otherwise.


Hey Nevadamedic, any comment on this post??

[Kathianne]

Are you trying to deny that you and few other members have repped each other to purposely gain rep points?

If you are trying to deny such I suggest you think about doing so. I do have access to rep comments and can prove otherwise.


Hey Nevadamedic, any comment on this post??

and still doing so?