UN demands US gun control

[91FXRS]

Emailed Lugar will follow with a thank you to Coats.

 

[thompal]

I was of the understanding that our constitution explicitly forbids any governing body outside of the US government dictation US law. Even if we signed the treaty, the law could not be imposed in this country.

Article VI: (in part)

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.....any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

[hoosierbulldog]

I followed this link and filled in my info, it sends a canned reminder to both Senators, but thanks them if they already followed thru. After I sent it, I sent this link to all my plinking buddies. We should send this to everyone that we know. Great thread!

take-action

 

[JohnE]

E-mailed both. Thanks for the links.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Article VI: (in part)

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.....any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

As I read it, that's saying that the US Constitution, federal laws, and all treaties are co-equal and supersede state laws and state Constitutions.

This seems to me to be contrary to the thought that the states were to be sovereign and the fedgov exists to serve them and the people, but it's there in black and white. I'd appreciate an attorney's read on the correctness of this.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[thompal]

As I read it, that's saying that the US Constitution, federal laws, and all treaties are co-equal and supersede state laws and state Constitutions.

This seems to me to be contrary to the thought that the states were to be sovereign and the fedgov exists to serve them and the people, but it's there in black and white. I'd appreciate an attorney's read on the correctness of this.

Blessings,
Bill

I believe that the concept of state sovereignty you give was how things existed under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution of 1787 was created to 'fix' some of the defects that had come to be known, but in the opinion of many, went to far in the other direction.

However, the federal Constitution is only supposed to operate on those issues specifically enumerated. I don't believe it was intended to grant wide-ranging federal jurisdiction over citizens. But, as with any government, they will constantly expand their power as long as the citizens allow it. The newly expanded power then becomes the new baseline from which they further extend their grasp.

Until The People learn how to "Just Say No!", the federal government will encroach further and further into the jurisdiction of The States, and into the daily lives of The People.

 

[jon159753]

I will suport this the day that every country disolves their military and Obama drops his security detail because there are no threats in the world anymore. This is the quickest way to make sure only terrorists have weapons.

 

[T.Lex]

Checks and balances.

Within a generation or so of the "new" Constitution, the courts started to elaborate on the hierarchy.
Article Six of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is complicated.

Over-simplistically:
The Constitution comes first. State laws, constitutions, federal laws, and treaties can be, in whole or in part, found to be "unconstitutional."

Depending on the context, federal laws and treaties are in the same "level" and can supersede state laws and constitutions. Interstate commerce is probably the most developed area where federal laws trump state laws and constitutions.

State laws/constitutions generally come next.

After that, I'd put all the federal and state administrative regulations, a whole slew of which the states incorporate by reference into laws (like Department of Transportation regs).

At the bottom end are local ordinances and other rules passed by local bodies.

Again, it is complicated. And this is not really a new phenomenon.

Edit:
I've said this elsewhere, but I'll start worrying about the UN when they start becoming effective... at anything. I'm not worried yet.

Edit2:
I should've addressed the sovereignty thing. The states are sovereigns, along with the federal gov't. Each is "sovereign" only to the extent that they have powers "delegated" to them in the constitutions - federal and their own state constitution. I put "delegated" because some of the modern powers aren't really mentioned in the original documents.

 

[thompal]

I will suport this the day that every country disolves their military and Obama drops his security detail because there are no threats in the world anymore. This is the quickest way to make sure only governments and other terrorists have weapons.

FIFY

 

[thompal]

I've said this elsewhere, but I'll start worrying about the UN when they start becoming effective... at anything. I'm not worried yet.

But even in their ineffectiveness, and in some cases because of it, they typically cause more trouble than if they stayed out of situations. A good example is one of their very first actions. How much trouble and bad intent in the mid-east has been caused by the UN-imposed creation of Israel, and the UN-led war to create it? Or the times they have invaded a country to establish "safe zones" which have accomplished nothing more than disarming the citizens, rounding them up in fenced in areas, starving them, and making it easier for opposing forces to come in and massacre them?

 

[flagtag]

Unfortunately, one of my senators is Richard (Dick) Durbin. He's so far up Obama's *** that he can't see that much of his "work" is traitorous.
He is the mirror image of Obama. (Super scumbag!!!)

 

[T.Lex]

How much trouble and bad intent in the mid-east has been caused by the UN-imposed creation of Israel, and the UN-led war to create it?

Point of clarification: the UN no more "created" Israel than it "created" any other country.

Israel was created just like almost every other country. A group of people drew some lines on a map, claimed that area as their own, and defended it against anyone who disagreed. That's how countries start.

 

[hoosierbulldog]

"Point of clarification: the UN no more "created" Israel than it "created" any other country."

Thank goodness the UN doesn't have this kind of power or we would all be in trouble. I think that the US should get out of the UN altogether. At the time it was formed it may have served a good purpose, but I really wonder at this point.

 

[jon159753]

Well if this ever passes this will be the country of Indiana and I will defend it.

 

[Mgderf]

Get the U.S. A. out of the U.N. and get the U.N. out of the U.S.A.


Just my opinion

 

[holejack1]

Deffinately need to get out of the UN. Though I do believe that for a treaty to be binding for us congress has to pass a law approving it. More reason to raise hell with representatives.

 

[2A_Tom]

Get the U.S. A. out of the U.N. and get the U.N. out of the U.S.A.


Just my opinion

Your's, mine and many more.

 

[flagtag]

Point of clarification: the UN no more "created" Israel than it "created" any other country.

Israel was created just like almost every other country. A group of people drew some lines on a map, claimed that area as their own, and defended it against anyone who disagreed. That's how countries start.

For those of you into religion: Check the Bible. God designated that area for His "Chosen People".

 

[.452browning]

Get the U.S. A. out of the U.N. and get the U.N. out of the U.S.A.


Just my opinion

AMEN BROTHER!

 

[MeAndMyXD]

Sent both emails a few weeks ago about this issue.

Senator Lugar sent me a response stating that he is opposed to this. Not sure if he means it.