Have you ever...

[5stringJeff]

I suggest you start, then, by amending article VI.

I believe that if a treaty conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. For example, if the UN passes a treaty banning handgun use, in direct violation of the Constitution, that treaty would not be valid/enforceable.

[JohnDoe]

I believe that if a treaty conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. For example, if the UN passes a treaty banning handgun use, in direct violation of the Constitution, that treaty would not be valid/enforceable.

We HAVE to sign the treaty Jeff, once it is ratified by the senate via 2/3's yes vote and signed by the president, a treaty is constitutional.

Wrold wide treaties that are not signed and ratified by us do not count and are not constitutional.

jd

[5stringJeff]

We HAVE to sign the treaty Jeff, once it is ratified by the senate via 2/3's yes vote and signed by the president, a treaty is constitutional.

Wrold wide treaties that are not signed and ratified by us do not count and are not constitutional.

jd

The way it works is, the President (or an ambassador) signs the treaty, then it goes to the Senate for ratification. We don't have to sign any treaties we don't want to - and in this example we shouldn't. But even if we did sign and ratify the treaty, it would violate the Second Amendment, and would therefore be unlawful.

[JohnDoe]

The way it works is, the President (or an ambassador) signs the treaty, then it goes to the Senate for ratification. We don't have to sign any treaties we don't want to - and in this example we shouldn't. But even if we did sign and ratify the treaty, it would violate the Second Amendment, and would therefore be unlawful.

i think that would take a suit, and a supreme court decision, ruling it unconstitutional.....otherwise, i think it would supercede the constitution via the constitution.

Every one of those senators voting yes for the ratification and the president for signing the treaty too in your example, should be impeached or removed from office for breaking their oath to defend the constitution imho.

[5stringJeff]

i think that would take a suit, and a supreme court decision, ruling it unconstitutional.....otherwise, i think it would supercede the constitution via the constitution.

Every one of those senators voting yes for the ratification and the president for signing the treaty too in your example, should be impeached or removed from office for breaking their oath to defend the constitution imho.

Nothing supersedes the Constitution. That's my whole point.

[JohnDoe]

Nothing supersedes the Constitution. That's my whole point.

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

[Immanuel]

I would think that the US military and I had temporarily lost. When your a loser in a battle you don't get to demand any kind of treatment.

So we take over the world, throw everyone who disagrees with us in prison and no one gets any human rights? Are you sure you don't work for the U.N.?

Immie

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

I have had disagreements, and positive repped others....even after name calling and childish behavior.....and then my mom made me sit in the corner.

Disagreement on an issue is not a good reason for neg repping, imo. Abusiveness or nastiness can be.

[Gaffer]

I don't know, what would you think if an army invaded your homeland, took you captive, moved you to a God-Forsaken Prison on an island you may never have heard of and held you prisoner without any hope of release? Oh, and for what crime? Some trumped up charges of being an enemy combatant against a country that you knew very little about maybe nothing more than the fact that this country is the one that is invading your homeland?

If Russia invaded and took me captive for defending America and refused to give me basic human rights, I wouldn't be too pleased either.

Immie

The prisoners in Gitmo are a mix of nationalities that were't defending their country. They were there to attack America. They were fighting US troops. They were in Afghanistan not iraq. They are ALL members of AQ. They were shipped off to Gitmo after extensive questioning to determine their status. Gitmo is a major Naval Base. They are not on a desolate island. How desolate do you think cuba is? They get three meals a day. A place to sleep. A prayer rug and qoran movies, TV, recreation time and a better life than many Americans have. Most are arabs from various middle east countries. They got caught up when we invaded and their train camps were over run.

They are not like you, they don't think like you, dream like you, feel compassion like you. The are the exact opposite of you, if you can imagine that and put yourself in that position.

[Gaffer]

Dillo and others....

Here is a copy of our Bill of Rights:



NOT ONE of those Rights given in our constitution's Bill of Rights is given SOLELY to a CITIZEN of the United States.


The word "citizen" is not even used, but person and persons is used...

FYI, everyone, according to our constitution is protected by our Bill of Rights if in the united states....legally or illegally.

When we take in prisoners, no matter what country we are in or the prisoners are in when we take them captive, it would seem that we would be required by our Constitution to afford them the same rights that any person in the usa would have because we have taken these people in to our custody?

Also, there is no such thing as an illegal combatant in the Constitution, so WHERE THE HELL did that term come from, and what in the constitution makes the administration say that our constitution does not apply to POW's that we have taken in to our custody? or "illegal combatants" in to our custody?

i guess i just don't git it?

jd

Here is a copy of the Preamble. Where it stays WE the people of the United States;

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It doesn't say a word about foreign peoples rights. Just the people of the US. It's "citizens".

Prisoners taken in war are given the rights of the GC. It wasn't always so. The GC protects POW's the same as the Constitution protects the US citizen.

As for the term illegal combatant. That is a recently invented term. A PC way of saying enemy soldier captured in the war. But since AQ is not a country they have to call them something besides solder. They have to treat them like prisoners of war when they are really nothing more than thugs. Instead of going after the countries these thugs come from we go after the thugs themselves. The countries they come from claim to be fighting these thugs and are allied with us. These same countries don't want the thugs back when we capture them.

This country is run by lawyers, which is why we have silly terms like illegal combatant. It's why this country will fail in this war until the lawyer shackles are removed and we can fight it the proper way.

And for everyones information. IRAQ is a FRONT in the overall war with islam. It is a global war and every country in the world is involved in some way. Appeasement, compromise and PC are all just roads to defeat lined with lawyers.

[JohnDoe]

Here is a copy of the Preamble. Where it stays WE the people of the United States;

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It doesn't say a word about foreign peoples rights. Just the people of the US. It's "citizens".

Prisoners taken in war are given the rights of the GC. It wasn't always so. The GC protects POW's the same as the Constitution protects the US citizen.

As for the term illegal combatant. That is a recently invented term. A PC way of saying enemy soldier captured in the war. But since AQ is not a country they have to call them something besides solder. They have to treat them like prisoners of war when they are really nothing more than thugs. Instead of going after the countries these thugs come from we go after the thugs themselves. The countries they come from claim to be fighting these thugs and are allied with us. These same countries don't want the thugs back when we capture them.

This country is run by lawyers, which is why we have silly terms like illegal combatant. It's why this country will fail in this war until the lawyer shackles are removed and we can fight it the proper way.

And for everyones information. IRAQ is a FRONT in the overall war with islam. It is a global war and every country in the world is involved in some way. Appeasement, compromise and PC are all just roads to defeat lined with lawyers.

But Gaffer, what constituted them being citizens at the time of the Constitution? We didn't have a Consitution yet, people in the united states, in the various different states, that joined were from all over the place, they were British and Germans and French by roots in some cases?

I think it covered anyone here, in the united states of America, because the Constitution SPECIFICALLY NOTES, when citizenship is required....like to be president of the united states, and to be a Senator it states you must have been a citizen of that state for at least 14 years or something like that, it might have been 7 years, or a citizen in order to have the right to vote if over...NOW 18 yrs old, (it was later than that in the beginning but an amendment to the constitution was drawn to give 18 year olds the right to vote....btw, i just learned that today on this awesome site on the Constitution i found! )

My point being, the Constitution specifically mentions when it applies only to citizens, otherwise it applies to anyone on our soil....imho....at least at this stage in my "self imposed Study"!

jd

[Gaffer]

But Gaffer, what constituted them being citizens at the time of the Constitution? We didn't have a Consitution yet, people in the united states, in the various different states, that joined were from all over the place, they were British and Germans and French by roots in some cases?

I think it covered anyone here, in the united states of America, because the Constitution SPECIFICALLY NOTES, when citizenship is required....like to be president of the united states, and to be a Senator it states you must have been a citizen of that state for at least 14 years or something like that, it might have been 7 years, or a citizen in order to have the right to vote if over...NOW 18 yrs old, (it was later than that in the beginning but an amendment to the constitution was drawn to give 18 year olds the right to vote....btw, i just learned that today on this awesome site on the Constitution i found! )

My point being, the Constitution specifically mentions when it applies only to citizens, otherwise it applies to anyone on our soil....imho....at least at this stage in my "self imposed Study"!

jd

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.

[nevadamedic]

Gitmo is a much needed base and prison.

[82Marine89]

Martin obviously feels the need to be a part of something and a need to be accepted so he will say or do anything he can to achieve that status. Nothing wrong with being like that at all, but that is obviously where that and a lot of other things he says comes from.

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

[Said1]

All this fuss over rep points?