Constitution End Run, or How do you solve a problem like Scalia? by Fremdfirma

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Constitution End Run, or How do you solve a problem like Scalia?

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Thursday, November 19, 2009 18:44
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 600
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:40 AM

You know, I was kinda hopin someone else would notice or comment... anyways.

Damn Biden to the depths of hell, grrr.
So his agenda is revealed at last, and predictably, it's nefarious.

Ok, lemme explain to the uninformed about this stuff...

The Constitution has a sort of loophole where Treaty provisions are concerned, as it makes signed Treaties equal to itself in authority, overriding even State Laws to the contrary, this is the relevant text from Article Six.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and 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 or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

This is why I had such an issue with Shrub violating Treaties willy-nilly, cause as such he was essentially using the Constitution for toilet paper.

Now, Biden is a damn smart cracker, one of the few folk I consider actually dangerous in this adminstration cause he's sneaky as hell.

As of late, his proxies have been trying to set up various treaties that if you read the fine print, would place us under a set of copyright regs that would make the DCMA and related nastiness look like kid stuff, and they're worded in such a manner as to enable interpretation to the point where they could use those provisions on ANYTHING, up to and including crushing dissent, or criminalizing any variation of free speech or fair use they desire.

As if that was not enough, there's at least one Treaty draft going around that would essentially remove the protections of the Second and Fourth amendments, which depending on the Supreme Courts interpretation (something I am not at all sanguine about) could invoke some pretty serious problems.

Of course, any resistance first requires foreknowledge, and they've been keeping this crap quiet while waving other boogeymen in our face to distract us...

Anyhows, do your own homework on this, and you'll likely find it pretty offensive yourselves.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:56 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Are you suggesting, for instance, that the United States could sign a treaty with the EU that would invalidate the Bill of Rights?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:01 AM

BYTEMITE

I knew it! I knew health care was a goddamn smokescreen! It was obvious, I just couldn't find what they were hiding!

Got any links Frem? Aw, heck, I'll go look myself too.

Anthony: The UN? Ppht. They can't do crap, not really, not unless we let them. Which we might, because apparently we're very, very stupid.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:05 AM

BYTEMITE

Here's something, not sure it's related. Still looking.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-williams/joe-biden-true-friend-o
f_b_120776.html

EDIT: Scouring wikipedia right now.

Quote:
Biden was in charge of the oversight role for infrastructure spending from the Obama stimulus package intended to help counteract the ongoing recession, and stressed that only worthy projects should get funding.[190] By September 2009, Biden was satisfied that no major instances of waste or corruption had occurred.

*snerk*

*still looking*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 12:17 PM

DREAMTROVE

Frem

You have a point. They could delete the entire bill of rights through the NAFTA treaty or some similar document, related to WTO, or whatever. Hmm. Thanks for bringing it up. I still hold the only defense for the bill of rights is for each state in turn to adopt them into their state constitutions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 12:19 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"You have a point. They could delete the entire bill of rights through the NAFTA treaty or some similar document, related to WTO, or whatever."

Err...

No, they couldn't. Without risking civil war on a global scale.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 12:50 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Don't worry. Nothing "Obama" signs is real, since an illegal alien is not allowed to sign treaties, bills or executive orders.

Jurisdiction is Rule #1 in any court case. Since Obama is not a president, he cannot sign any law, thus no court has jurisdiction over any such fed law. Same holds true for fed cops and soldiers, since an illegal alien is not allowed to give them orders in the executive branch.

This is how civil wars get started, on purpose. Obama is PERFECT for that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 3:14 PM

DREAMTROVE

To totally disagree with the last two posts:

No, Wulf, it wouldn't. No one would notice. When the Federalists started stripping away the Bill of Rights under Bush, there was some flinching, but no one actually did anything.

John,

Obama is President. All criteria set forth determine who can take the oath of office, and become president. Once president, Obama is president. Nothing determines whether or not he can serve. He can be an actual lizard an remain in office.

Actually, I agree it's possible he might start a civil war, but only if things get really really bad economically. Frogs and people respond to broad spectrum collapse, not to slowly boiling water.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 3:14 PM

DREAMTROVE

Frem

A note on the federalists. I posted here earlier that the appointment of Sam Alito ended the American Republic, as it put 5 members of the Federalist Society on the bench, which meant a solid majority for doing what the court was created to do: Repeal the bill of rights, which they systematically then got to work on.

The reasons I quibble over the federalists is I want terms that will apply to the same snakes in other groups, other countries and other times. There is a similar pattern here.

Also, it's worth noting that they chose their name to be intentionally misleading. The First Confederacy of New England and the Articles of Confederation were enacted by what were then "Confederates" who were people who supported a "Federation" a loose association of alliance for mutual protection, like the Iroquois Confederation.

The Federalists were originally called something else, which I cannot find, but I recall reading the they renamed themselves to capture the world "federal" and denounce their opponents, by giving them the negative moniker "anti-federalists." The switch was simple psychology, and won them the vote.

But this is not a unique situation, there are many parallels, and similar methods which was my point

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 5:46 PM

FREMDFIRMA

It's buried in ACTA.

http://boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4510/125/

And this administration has been trying, and quite successfully overall, to bury the fucking thing under "national security" excuses, as if us petty little peons don't need to know, yeah, right...

But people talk, even and especially when they're not supposed to, and everything goes SOMEWHERE.

There is no. such. thing. as "secure" if someone wants something badly enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_laundering

And this is pure Biden, it's got his fingerprints ALL over it - and it's NOT, for a fact, the only sham treaty being bandied about, but they're playin the cards close right now and leaks are hard to come by.

-Frem

PS - Stop with the title changing, I picked that to be an accurate representation of events, and doing so tends to make discussion impossible even for those who wanna spend the effort cause they cannot FIND the damn thread!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:44 PM

DREAMTROVE

Sorry, it was clever, I thought, and relevant to Federalism. I was going to post a new thread, but I thought that would be two threads on one topic which is also disruptive.

Oh, and it's not me, that's the first title change I've made in a long time. I think there are about 2 or 3 a day that I've been watching, so I'd say 300 have gone under the board since the last one I did.

ETA: Also I thought my title was descriptive and catchy and might get more hits ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE