Traitors All

[Ray Keller]

Traitors All
Notice that the State of Ma. gave two votes for this. It is embarrassing
that the birth place of the revolutionary war and contributors to the
constitution (with amendments) could also provide people with such ignorance
who voted for this.

Over one weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate
giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote,
the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from
entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

The Statement of Purpose from the bill read:

To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from
entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama
Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and
export of small firearms.

The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S., and had
language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all
private guns and ammo.

Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away
our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.

Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.

Baldwin (D-WI)

Baucus (D-MT)

Bennet (D-CO)

Blumenthal (D-CT)

Boxer (D-CA)

Brown (D-OH)

Cantwell (D-WA)

Cardin (D-MD)

Carper (D-DE)

Casey (D-PA)

Coons (D-DE)

Cowan (D-MA)

Durbin (D-IL)

Feinstein (D-CA)

Franken (D-MN)

Gillibrand (D-NY)

Harkin (D-IA)

Hirono (D-HI)

Johnson (D-SD)

Kaine (D-VA)

King (I-ME)

Klobuchar (D-MN)

Landrieu (D-LA)

Leahy (D-VT)

Levin (D-MI)

McCaskill (D-MO)

Menendez (D-NJ)

Merkley (D-OR)

Mikulski (D-MD)

Murphy (D-CT)

Murray (D-WA)

Nelson (D-FL)

Reed (D-RI)

Reid (D-NV)

Rockefeller (D-WV)

Sanders (I-VT)

Schatz (D-HI)

Schumer (D-NY)

Shaheen (D-NH)

Stabenow (D-MI)

Udall (D-CO)

Udall (D-NM)

Warner (D-VA)

Warren (D-MA)

Whitehouse (D-RI)

Wyden (D-OR)

People this needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take our
guns. They need to lose the election. We have been betrayed. 46 Senators
Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.

Ā

Ā

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 07:29:46 -0700, "Ray Keller"
<Left...@re.desperate.com> wrote:

> People this needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take our
>guns. They need to lose the election. We have been betrayed. 46 Senators
>Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.

Treaties don't trump the Constitution. Never have. Never will.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/2/2013 7:29 AM, Ray Keller wrote:
> Traitors All
> Notice that the State of Ma. gave two votes for this. It is embarrassing
> that the birth place of the revolutionary war and contributors to the
> constitution (with amendments) could also provide people with such ignorance
> who voted for this.
>
> Over one weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate
> giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote,
> the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from
> entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
>

> [rabid foam flushed away]

>
> People this needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take our
> guns. They need to lose the election. We have been betrayed. 46 Senators
> Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.

Nothing in the treaty would have infringed any rights secured by the
second amendment. You are a raving lunatic.

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 07:29:46 -0700, "Ray Keller"
<Left...@re.desperate.com> wrote:

>
>

>Traitors All
> Notice that the State of Ma. gave two votes for this. It is embarrassing
>that the birth place of the revolutionary war and contributors to the
>constitution (with amendments) could also provide people with such ignorance
>who voted for this.

<snip>

The NRA and the Ray-bot have just lined themselves up with Iran, North
Korea, and Syria -- the only UN members to vote against the treaty.

You're known by the company you keep, Ray. It appears that the gun
nutz feel they share common interests with the axis of evil.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

--
Ed Huntress

[Rehashed and repeated propaganda.]

On 5/2/2013 9:29 AM, Ray Keller

>
> The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S., and had
> language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all
> private guns and ammo.
>
>
>

100 % lie

--
--- Conservatives remind me of Yosemite Sam, Wile E. Coyote, and Elmer
Fudd. They bring the guns, the stupidity, and of course, the failure.

SAVE AMERICA!!

Spay or neuter
your Republican!!
--
--> Slow thinkers --> Stay Right

--

The methodology of the Right has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

--> Slow thinkers --> Stay Right

Loon Party: http://www.twitpic.com/8zi369/full

[Mighty Wannabe]

The brains of you 2nd Amendment loons are going viral alright. Your
mental illness has driven all of you into ancestor worship. The
freaking Framers are not God. They were just ancient people who became
turncoat colonists and rebelled against their British Imperial
Overlord. They created this new nation (good or bad is up to debate)
but they fucked it up by writing a Constitution and a bunch of
Amendments that the freaking Constitution loons and 2 Amendment loons
think those drunken words are holier than God's Words in the Old
Testament. These loons are busy bickering over the interpretation of
those drunken word that nothing can get done to save the USS Titanic
while it is listing and taking in water, and rats are seen jumping
overboard in droves to escape the imminent calamity. At the same time
you freaking loons are shooting and bombing each other like there is
no tomorrow. For this, the Framers should be exhumed and given 300
lashes each, and the USA put under the supervision of the UN
indefinitely.

[Jeff M]

On 5/2/2013 11:00 AM, Mighty Wannabe wrote:
> On May 2, 10:29 am, "Ray Keller" <Lefta...@re.desperate.com> wrote:
>> Traitors All
>> Notice that the State of Ma. gave two votes for this. It is embarrassing
>> that the birth place of the revolutionary war and contributors to the
>> constitution (with amendments) could also provide people with such ignorance
>> who voted for this.
>>
>> Over one weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate
>> giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote,
>> the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from
>> entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

[snip of false, ignorant nonsense]

>> People this needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take our
>> guns. They need to lose the election. We have been betrayed. 46 Senators
>> Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.

The UN treaty in question has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with our 2nd
Amendment and the rights it protects. It is simply an effort to control
the already illegal extra-national trade of small arms like heavy
machine guns and rocket propelled grenades to terrorist groups like Al
Qaeda and drug cartels like Los Zetas. Intellectual flyweights and
actual dullards have trouble grasping this.

However, anyone of normal or better intelligence who has bothered to
look into the issue immediately understood the facts of the matter.
That leaves out our over-excitable but under-educated types, who are,
once again, being lied to, manipulated and whipped into a near frenzy by
the usual suspects who gain politically from exploiting the ignorance
and gullibility of such fools.

> The brains of you 2nd Amendment loons are going viral alright. Your
> mental illness has driven all of you into ancestor worship. The
> freaking Framers are not God.

But they were, for the most part, remarkably, wise, thoughtful, prudent,
practical, public-minded and broadly-educated liberals. They were, in
short, the very antitheses of the regressive extremists of today.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/2/2013 9:26 AM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 5/2/2013 11:00 AM, Mighty Wannabe wrote:
>> On May 2, 10:29 am, "Ray Keller" <Lefta...@re.desperate.com> wrote:
>>> Traitors All
>>> Notice that the State of Ma. gave two votes for this. It is
>>> embarrassing
>>> that the birth place of the revolutionary war and contributors to the
>>> constitution (with amendments) could also provide people with such
>>> ignorance
>>> who voted for this.
>>>
>>> Over one weekend, we came four votes away from the United States
>>> Senate
>>> giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a
>>> 53-46 vote,
>>> the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States
>>> from
>>> entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
>
> [snip of false, ignorant nonsense]
>
>>> People this needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN
>>> take our
>>> guns. They need to lose the election. We have been betrayed. 46 Senators
>>> Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.
>
> The UN treaty in question has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with our 2nd
> Amendment and the rights it protects.

On the surface, it would appear that way. However, no one anticipated
the ADA would prevent employers from firing drug addicted employees, and
Hubert Humphrey famously proclaimed the Civil Rights Act of 1964
contained no language mandating racial quotas, yet racial quotas are
exactly what we got out of it.

[RichA]

On May 2, 10:29 am, "Ray Keller" <Lefta...@re.desperate.com> wrote:

>   Â
>
> Â

One more attempted step to world government.

[JohnJohnsn]

On May 2, 11:57 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>
>
> On 5/2/2013 9:26 AM, Jeff McCann wrote:
>
>> On 5/2/2013 11:00 AM, Mighty Wannabe wrote:
>
>>> On May 2, 10:29 am, "Ray Keller" <Lefta...@re.desperate.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Traitors All
>>>>
>>>> Notice that the State of Ma. gave two votes for this. It is embarrassing
>>>> that the birth place of the revolutionary war and contributors to the
>>>> constitution (with amendments) could also provide people with such
>>>> ignorance who voted for this.
>
>>>> Over one weekend, we came four votes away from the United States
>>>> Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations.
>>>> In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop
>>>> the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
>
>> [snip of false, ignorant nonsense]
>
>>>> People this needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take our
>>>> guns. They need to lose the election. We have been betrayed. 46 Senators
>>>> Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.
>
>> The UN treaty in question has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with our 2nd
>> Amendment and the rights it protects.
>
> On the surface, it would appear that way. However, no one anticipated

> the ADA would prevent employers from firing drug-addicted employees,

> and Hubert Humphrey famously proclaimed the Civil Rights Act of 1964
> contained no language mandating racial quotas, yet racial quotas are
> exactly what we got out of it.
>

Both the above are the results of "The Law of Unintended
Consequences."

The important question here is: "Does Obama have a long-term agenda in
pushing the UN Small Arms Treaty which might be viewed as possible
`Intended Consequences'?"

Only time will tell....

[George Plimpton]

I don't think so. I think the sponsors of ADA 1990 and CRA 1964 knew
full well what the results would be. In other words, they were intended
but unstated consequences.

[Gunner Asch]

Leftwingers are liars of the worst sort. Antigun Lefties are the worst
of the worst

http://lastresistance.com/2035/residents-offended-by-gun-rights-billboard/

Two billboards erected in Greeley, Colorado are coming under fire for
being way too politically incorrect. First off, they’re billboards
with pro-gun messages. Secondly, they used Native Americans to argue
their case. And thirdly, it was paid for by someone who wishes to
remain anonymous.

http://media.salon.com/2013/04/native-americans-guns1-620x322.jpg


The billboard depicts three Native Americans, one of whom is holding a
rifle. The caption reads, “Turn in your arms. The government will take
care of you.”

The billboard seems to make reference to what happened in 1890 to a
group of Sioux Indians. Personal Liberty Digest recounted:

“Perhaps the most famous example occurred in 1890 — decades before
the 1924 guarantee of Constitutional rights for Native Americans —
when Federal agents murdered 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek
on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. Before the
Native Americans were killed by the agents of the state, they were
notified that the 7th Cavalry had come to confiscate their firearms
‘for their own safety and protection.’”

Obviously, the point of the billboard is to impress the viewer with
the historical significance of gun control, and what it’s really
about. It’s about “safety and protection” now as much as it was for
the Native Americans over a century ago at Wounded Knee Creek.

Needless to say, people were offended that Native Americans were
invoked to push the “gun rights agenda.” Minority groups are only to
be exploited in the pursuance of liberal ideals. You can use a picture
of a black person to push for more gun control. You can use a picture
of a Mexican family to push for illegal immigration. But using a
minority group to push for gun rights is downright racist and
disgusting.

One resident said that only a coward would do such a thing
anonymously: “I thought it was pretty cowardly that someone would put
something like that up and spend the money for a billboard but didn’t
have the courage to put their name on it.”

I see billboards all the time I don’t like. But I look at them as
giant bumper stickers. I generally ignore them. I don’t care who paid
for them.

But speaking of anonymity, how many times has an “anonymous” atheist
filed lawsuits with the county or state in which is erected a Ten
Commandments display or nativity scene? I think that’s actually a case
where it really is cowardly to remain anonymous, because they’re
wasting taxpayer money on frivolous lawsuits. Whoever is behind the
Native American billboard paid for it with his own money.
"The ruling class doesn't care about public safety. Having made it
very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having
left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as
best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame
us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an
honest mistake."
Malcolm Wallop
former U.S. Sen. (R-WY)

[walt tonne]

Salvation would come if a small nuke slammed onto Capitol Hill during
the next State
of the Union Address. A stinking carcass crawling with maggots.

[JohnJohnsn]

Point taken.

[deep]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 11:26:20 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org>
wrote:

>On 5/2/2013 11:00 AM, Mighty Wannabe wrote:
>> On May 2, 10:29 am, "Ray Keller" <Lefta...@re.desperate.com> wrote:
>>> Traitors All
>>> Notice that the State of Ma. gave two votes for this. It is embarrassing
>>> that the birth place of the revolutionary war and contributors to the
>>> constitution (with amendments) could also provide people with such ignorance
>>> who voted for this.
>>>
>>> Over one weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate
>>> giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote,
>>> the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from
>>> entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
>
>[snip of false, ignorant nonsense]
>
>>> People this needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take our
>>> guns. They need to lose the election. We have been betrayed. 46 Senators
>>> Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.
>
>The UN treaty in question has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with our 2nd
>Amendment and the rights it protects. It is simply an effort to control
>the already illegal extra-national trade of small arms like heavy
>machine guns and rocket propelled grenades to terrorist groups like Al
>Qaeda and drug cartels like Los Zetas. Intellectual flyweights and
>actual dullards have trouble grasping this.
>

The US is the world's larget exported of arms and advance military
weaponry. Big money in that stuff. No wonder the rightards are
against any regulation.

[RD Sandman]

RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:aea16ff5-f93e-4790...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

> On May 2, 10:29 am, "Ray Keller" <Lefta...@re.desperate.com> wrote:

>>   Over one weekend, we came four votes away from the United States
>> Sena
> te
>> giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a
>> 53-46 v
> ote,
>> the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States
>> fro
> m
>> entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
>>
>>   The Statement of Purpose from the bill read:
>>
>>   To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States
>> from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
>>
>>   The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama
>> Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the
>> import and export of small firearms.
>>
>>   The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S., and
>> had
>> language that would have implemented an international gun registry on
>> all private guns and ammo.

No, it wouldn't. Please read:

Article VI, US Constitution addressing supremacy.

"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."

Parsing it gives you:

"This Constitution....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 and State to the Contrary not withstanding."

It also states "...and all Treaties made, or which shall be made
**under** the Authority of the United States..."

The Constitution remains paramount.




--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

You can be young without money, but you
can't be old without it.

[David J. Hughes]

Parsing it differently:
"All Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, 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."

The order of listing does not define a ranking.

Treaties rank equally with the Constitution, which suggests that
Congress should be VERY careful about entering into treaties.

[JohnJohnsn]

Prove it, Scheißekopf.

Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
world.

[Richard]

On 5/2/2013 7:02 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:

> Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
> missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
> world.

Well, you might want to start with a movie - Charlie Wilson's War.

The film is adapted from George Crile's 2003 book Charlie Wilson's War :
The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History.


The scene where Charlie and Gust are meeting with Zvi Rafiah...
Fascinating. Whod'a ever thunk?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson%27s_War


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson%27s_War

Joanne Herring: Why is Congress saying one thing and doing nothing?
Charlie Wilson: Well, it's tradition mostly.


Charlie Wilson: You mean to tell me that the U.S. strategy in
Afghanistan is to have the Afghans keep walking into machine gun fire
'til the Russians run out of bullets?
Gust Avrakotos: That's Harold Holt's strategy, it's not U.S. strategy.
Charlie Wilson: What is U.S. strategy?
Gust Avrakotos: Well strictly speaking, we don't have one. But we're
working hard on that.
Charlie Wilson: Who's 'we'?
Gust Avrakotos: Me and three other guys.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 16:16:48 -0600, deep wrote:


>The US is the world's larget exported of arms and advance military
>weaponry. Big money in that stuff. No wonder the rightards are
>against any regulation.

You really ARE as stupid as they say.

You're now claiming that we don't want background checks and
registration and assault weapon "bans" because it's gonna hurt our
arms exports?

Are you really THAT much of a simpleton?

[David J. Hughes]

On 5/2/2013 7:02 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:

Th US isn't of course. But it is selling planes, ships, tanks,
artillery, support gear, missiles, ammunition, and personal weapons to
many foreign governments.
In total dollar value, the US is the world's largest ordinance exporter.
After all, one well used, obsolete for the purposes of the US, destroyer
sold to, say, Greece, equals in dollar value to a trainload of AK style
personal weapons.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 20:51:16 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
<davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote:

>On 5/2/2013 7:02 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:

>> Prove it, Schei�ekopf.

>>
>> Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>> missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>> world.
>>>
>
>Th US isn't of course. But it is selling planes, ships, tanks,
>artillery, support gear, missiles, ammunition, and personal weapons to
>many foreign governments.
>In total dollar value, the US is the world's largest ordinance exporter.
>After all, one well used, obsolete for the purposes of the US, destroyer
>sold to, say, Greece, equals in dollar value to a trainload of AK style
>personal weapons.

Any idea what impact universal background checks might have on such
sales?

I'm thinking, "zero."

[RD Sandman]

"David J. Hughes" <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote in
news:OSCgt.26239$zH4....@newsfe13.iad:

I haven't claimed it did. Parsing the sentence, however, does.

> Treaties rank equally with the Constitution, which suggests that
> Congress should be VERY careful about entering into treaties.

No, they don't.

[1,957 murdered in Obama's organized communities]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 07:29:46 -0700, "Ray Keller"
<Left...@re.desperate.com> wrote:

>
>

>Traitors All
> Notice that the State of Ma. gave two votes for this. It is embarrassing
>that the birth place of the revolutionary war and contributors to the
>constitution (with amendments) could also provide people with such ignorance
>who voted for this.
>
> Over one weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate
>giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote,
>the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from
>entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
>
> The Statement of Purpose from the bill read:
>
> To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from
>entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
>
> The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama
>Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and
>export of small firearms.
>
> The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S., and had
>language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all
>private guns and ammo.
>
> Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away
>our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
>
> Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.

Notice the common theme amongst these seantors. All treasonous 'Rats
and a couple 'Rat wannabes.

[JohnJohnsn]

On May 2, 7:53 pm, Richard <cavel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 5/2/2013 7:02 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>
>> Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>> missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>> world.
>
> Well, you might want to start with a movie - Charlie Wilson's War.
>
> The film is adapted from George Crile's 2003 book Charlie Wilson's War :
> The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History.
>

Oh, I'm _very_ familiar with "Goodtime Charlie" Wilson (D-TX): he was
"just down the road a piece" from me there in Lufkin. :)

And the real thing was over thrity years ago now: I was speaking of a
_lot_ more recent history.

And it was Stinger missiles; not RPGs; that he convinced the CIA to
provide to the Mujahideen i order to fight the Soviet's Mil Mi-24
`Hind' "flying tanks" (attack helicopters): the 7.62mm AK-47's and
AK-47S's, and later 5.45mm AK-74's, came first from captured Soviet
weapons, then from the "cottage gunsmiths" of the Kyber Pass, who made
excellent "knock-offs."

Oh, BTW: Charlie was VERY pro-2nd Amendment!

>
>
> The scene where Charlie and Gust are meeting with Zvi Rafiah...
> Fascinating. Whod'a ever thunk?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson%27s_War
>
> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson%27s_War
>
> Joanne Herring: Why is Congress saying one thing and doing nothing?
> Charlie Wilson: Well, it's tradition mostly.
>
> Charlie Wilson: You mean to tell me that the U.S. strategy in
> Afghanistan is to have the Afghans keep walking into machine gun fire
> 'til the Russians run out of bullets?
> Gust Avrakotos: That's Harold Holt's strategy, it's not U.S. strategy.
> Charlie Wilson: What is U.S. strategy?
> Gust Avrakotos: Well strictly speaking, we don't have one. But we're
> working hard on that.
> Charlie Wilson: Who's 'we'?
> Gust Avrakotos: Me and three other guys.
>

Bookmark these;
Charlie Wilson's War (2007)
Trivia: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472062/trivia
Goofs: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472062/goofs

[David J. Hughes]

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote in Missouri v. Holland (1920)
"Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in
pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when
made under the authority of the United States. It is open to question
whether the authority of the United States means more than the formal
acts prescribed to make the convention."

To date, no treaty, after being confirmed by the US Senate, has ever
been found invalid due to conflicting with the US Constitution.

Reid v. Covert (1957) suggests that the Constitution is supreme, but as
that case did not involve a treaty, it is merely a suggestion, not case law.
Under Reid v. Covert, anything less than a confirmed treaty is likely to
be inferior to the Constitution.

The question has yet to be decided, and you and I can debate it until
doomsday without a conclusion.

IMO, the Constitution should be supreme over treaties, but the wording
of the Constitution is, regrettably, open to interpretation.

[deep]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 17:02:48 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn
<TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Prove it, Schei�ekopf.

>
>Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>world.
>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_arms_exports

[Ivan Bodley]

"deep" wrote in message news:a4e7o8phd4p0q2nl9...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 2 May 2013 17:02:48 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn
> <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:


>> Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>> missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>> world.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_arms_exports

#####

Did the question confuse you, you retard?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

That doesn't even come CLOSE to addressing his request.

Fuck, don't you READ cites before posting them?

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 06:33:17 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 03 May 2013 07:16:31 -0600, deep wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 2 May 2013 17:02:48 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn
>><TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

>>>Prove it, Scheißekopf.

>>>
>>>Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>>>missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>>>world.
>>>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_arms_exports
>
>That doesn't even come CLOSE to addressing his request.
>
>Fuck, don't you READ cites before posting them?

Exactly. The US only sells our $34 billion of weapons, including
200,000 small arms, to "trusted parties." ...heh, heh....

But Obama is trying to loosen it up. As for who it goes to, he wants
to drop the requirement for Customs to check into it, and he's leaving
it up to the countries who are importing our guns. Obama wants to
double the export output of US arms manufacturers -- 'good for our
economy, don't ya' know. From the Wall Street Journal:

http://tinyurl.com/btv72vz

--
Ed Huntress

[Ivan Bodley]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" wrote in message
news:o3f7o8h0un6t776iq...@4ax.com...

###

Can DooDoo even read?
We already know his "reading compression" level is really low.

By the way, is France still where it was since year 843, or did it move
closer to Libya ?

[Gunner Asch]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 06:33:17 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 03 May 2013 07:16:31 -0600, deep wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 2 May 2013 17:02:48 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn
>><TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

>>>Prove it, Scheißekopf.

>>>
>>>Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>>>missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>>>world.
>>>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_arms_exports
>
>That doesn't even come CLOSE to addressing his request.
>
>Fuck, don't you READ cites before posting them?

"deeps" knowlege level is microns thick.

[SaPeIsMa]

"David J. Hughes" <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:OSCgt.26239$zH4....@newsfe13.iad...

IF a treaty is made UNDER the authority of the Constitution, it has to be
subservient to the Constitution.
In effect you are claiming that a treaty is a Constitutional Amendment,
since that is the ONLY way a treaty can be of equal footing to the
Constitution - by being a part of it.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

The cite didn't support the claim. Perhaps you'd like to help him out?

[deep]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 07:39:53 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude

It most certainly does you lying ass. I said the US is the largest
exporter of guns and military hardware in the world. There it is
right at the top of the list. Find someone to read it to you dumbass.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 07:39:53 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude

>>>>>Prove it, Schei�ekopf.

>>>>>
>>>>>Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>>>>>missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>>>>>world.
>>>>>>
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_arms_exports
>>>
>>>That doesn't even come CLOSE to addressing his request.
>>>
>>>Fuck, don't you READ cites before posting them?
>>
>>Exactly. The US only sells our $34 billion of weapons, including
>>200,000 small arms, to "trusted parties." ...heh, heh....
>
>The cite didn't support the claim. Perhaps you'd like to help him out?

Hey, I said "exactly," referring to your comment about the Wikipedia
cite not supporting what was said.

If you're referring to MY claim, here are the words in the link I
cited:

"Foreign sales of all U.S.-made weapons topped $34 billion last year,
according to the Pentagon."

"U.S. manufacturers exported 195,000 firearms in 2009, the most recent
year the federal government has statistics."

"Behind the current dispute are proposals from the State and Commerce
departments that would ease the way for sales of semi-automatic
firearms of up to .50 caliber to 36 countries deemed "trusted
parties," said officials briefed on the matter."

It appears the "help" needed here should go to you, for remedial
reading -- if you're referring to what I said.

--
Ed Huntress

[deep]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 10:51:20 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:


>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_arms_exports
>>>>
>>>>That doesn't even come CLOSE to addressing his request.
>>>>
>>>>Fuck, don't you READ cites before posting them?
>>>
>>>Exactly. The US only sells our $34 billion of weapons, including
>>>200,000 small arms, to "trusted parties." ...heh, heh....
>>
>>The cite didn't support the claim. Perhaps you'd like to help him out?
>
>Hey, I said "exactly," referring to your comment about the Wikipedia
>cite not supporting what was said.
>

Of course it does. Maybe you people need to read it again. Here's a
couple of more.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/big-six-arms-exporters-2012-06-11
http://www.upi.com/News_Photos/Features/Worlds-Top-5-arms-exporters/3105/

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

You can't read. Can you?

Here is what you responded to-- assuming you weren't just responding
to the voices in your head, that is--

>>>>>>Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>>>>>>missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>>>>>>world.

> I said the US is the largest
>exporter of guns and military hardware in the world. There it is
>right at the top of the list. Find someone to read it to you dumbass.

That wasn't the question, you idiot. Here let me repeat it for you a
few more times.

>>>>>>Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>>>>>>missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>>>>>>world.


>>>>>>Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>>>>>>missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>>>>>>world.


>>>>>>Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>>>>>>missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>>>>>>world.


>>>>>>Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>>>>>>missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>>>>>>world.


>>>>>>Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>>>>>>missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>>>>>>world.


>>>>>>Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>>>>>>missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>>>>>>world.


>>>>>>Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>>>>>>missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>>>>>>world.

Got it now?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 09:02:36 -0600, deep wrote:

>On Fri, 03 May 2013 10:51:20 -0400, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_arms_exports
>>>>>
>>>>>That doesn't even come CLOSE to addressing his request.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fuck, don't you READ cites before posting them?
>>>>
>>>>Exactly. The US only sells our $34 billion of weapons, including
>>>>200,000 small arms, to "trusted parties." ...heh, heh....
>>>
>>>The cite didn't support the claim. Perhaps you'd like to help him out?
>>
>>Hey, I said "exactly," referring to your comment about the Wikipedia
>>cite not supporting what was said.
>>
>Of course it does. Maybe you people need to read it again.

Here is what you were responding to- AGAIN.

>>>>>>Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>>>>>>missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>>>>>>world.

NOTHING about "who exports the most arms."

Fuck-- are you REALLY this stupid?

[deep]

You pathetic lying little cocksucker you're still up to your same old
lame tricks. I NEVER said anything about AKs. That's your bullshit
to avoid the truth. I said the US is the largest exporter of arms in
the world, and they are. What I posted proved THAT. Trying to claim
now this is about AKs only, of course is your lie to try to make
Russia look like they are at the top of the list. This is no about
AKs you lying ass. This is about ALL ARMS. And in that the US is the
hands down leader. Period. Now fuck off you pathetic little
cocksucker.

[deep]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 08:18:38 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude

Fuck off you lying piece of shit. The issue is about ALL arms. The
claim about AKs was yours. Now you try to defend whatever idiotic
point you are trying to make. But all your's doing is avoiding the
truth by trying to change the argument. Once again. Your lame ass
tricks don't work loser.

Here, once again, this is what I said:

>>>>>>>> The US is the world's larget exported of arms and advance military
>>>>>>>> weaponry. Big money in that stuff. No wonder the rightards are
>>>>>>>> against any regulation.

That's exactly true, and my links proved it.

Now shut the fuck up you pathological freak.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gmh7o89fnmfor0u0q...@4ax.com...

I think your being generous.
I would use Angstroms, and even that would be a generous scale.

[deep]

On Fri, 3 May 2013 10:46:06 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Maybe you ignorant assholes should actually go back and read what I
posted and how the links I provided prove that point. Ask Klaus why
he brought up AKs and RPGs when the issue was clearly about total arms
exportation not just Russian made ones. It's obviuos why Klaus had to
once again attempt to lie his way around the truth.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 09:02:36 -0600, deep wrote:

I get an "Error 503" on that one.


>http://www.upi.com/News_Photos/Features/Worlds-Top-5-arms-exporters/3105/

I realize that your point that the US is the world's leading arms
exporter is correct. But Klaus carefully limited his claim to "selling

AK-47 assault rifles and RPG missiles to all those terrorists,
insurgents and pirates across the world."

It was a bit of a misleading question, but that's what it was.

The US actually *has* passed out a lot of AK-47s. IIRC, we gave a
bunch of them to the mujahideen in Afghanistan when they were fighting
the Soviets. But I don't think we "sold" them.

Anyway, my point was a bit off-topic but it was relevant, and I didn't
want to get into a tussle over the argument you're having with Klaus.
But fire away, by all means.

--
Ed Huntress

[deep]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 12:11:50 -0400, Ed Huntress

<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 03 May 2013 09:02:36 -0600, deep wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 03 May 2013 10:51:20 -0400, Ed Huntress
>><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_arms_exports
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That doesn't even come CLOSE to addressing his request.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Fuck, don't you READ cites before posting them?
>>>>>
>>>>>Exactly. The US only sells our $34 billion of weapons, including
>>>>>200,000 small arms, to "trusted parties." ...heh, heh....
>>>>
>>>>The cite didn't support the claim. Perhaps you'd like to help him out?
>>>
>>>Hey, I said "exactly," referring to your comment about the Wikipedia
>>>cite not supporting what was said.
>>>
>>Of course it does. Maybe you people need to read it again. Here's a
>>couple of more.
>>
>>http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/big-six-arms-exporters-2012-06-11
>
>I get an "Error 503" on that one.
>

Works for me.

>
>>http://www.upi.com/News_Photos/Features/Worlds-Top-5-arms-exporters/3105/
>
>I realize that your point that the US is the world's leading arms
>exporter is correct. But Klaus carefully limited his claim to "selling
>AK-47 assault rifles and RPG missiles to all those terrorists,
>insurgents and pirates across the world."
>

Of course Klaus et al are going to try to limit the discussion to
Russian made weapons so that they can artificially show Russia at the
top of the list. Clearly bogus selective sammpling and lies rather
than address the real issue.

>It was a bit of a misleading question, but that's what it was.
>
>The US actually *has* passed out a lot of AK-47s. IIRC, we gave a
>bunch of them to the mujahideen in Afghanistan when they were fighting
>the Soviets. But I don't think we "sold" them.
>
>Anyway, my point was a bit off-topic but it was relevant, and I didn't
>want to get into a tussle over the argument you're having with Klaus.
>But fire away, by all means.

Just shows you how the psychopath Klause operates. Another prime
example of how he lies, but just watch him try to turn it into a lie
by me.

[JohnJohnsn]

On May 3, 11:11 am, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 03 May 2013 09:02:36 -0600, deep wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 03 May 2013 10:51:20 -0400, Ed Huntress
>><huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_arms_exports
>
>>>>>>That doesn't even come CLOSE to addressing his request.
>
>>>>>>Fuck, don't you READ cites before posting them?
>
>>>>>Exactly. The US only sells our $34 billion of weapons, including
>>>>>200,000 small arms, to "trusted parties." ...heh, heh....
>
>>>>The cite didn't support the claim. Perhaps you'd like to help him out?
>
>>>Hey, I said "exactly," referring to your comment about the Wikipedia
>>>cite not supporting what was said.
>
>>Of course it does. Maybe you people need to read it again. Here's a
>>couple of more.
>
>>http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/big-six-arms-exporters-2012-06-11
>
> I get an "Error 503" on that one.
>

It comes up as an almost two-year-old unattributed AI article titled
"The 'Big Six' arms exporters":

1. China
There are few official statistics on the Chinese arms trade but the
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that
accounts for around 3 per cent of the global trade in conventional
arms.

Countries supplied
Recipient countries over the past decade have tended to be developing
countries with poor human rights records including Algeria, Angola,
Bangladesh, DRC, Guinea, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya,
Libya, Myanmar, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Irresponsible transfers
China continues to supply small arms ammunition to Sudan which has
been used in Darfur by security forces and government backed militia
groups. Chinese rockets and anti-vehicle mines were supplied to Libya
under Colonel Mu’ammar al-Gaddafi. Ammunition, rocket-propelled
grenades, mortar bombs and mortar launchers have been supplied to
Zimbabwe.

Stance on the ATT
China has not signed up to any multilateral agreement on arms exports,
and has a cautious approach to the proposed treaty. It has said it
accepts the need for a treaty to recognize international human rights
but that such criteria are difficult to judge objectively. There have
been interventions from China to narrow the scope of the ATT to
exclude small arms and light weapons, as well as government-to-
government transfers. Experience from earlier negotiations suggests
that China will try to water down the text and then introduce a late
major objection.


2. France
France, Germany and UK are consistently ranked third, fourth or fifth
globally in terms of the value of their conventional arms exports.

Countries supplied
France’s key customers include Singapore, UAE, Greece, other NATO
partners, the Middle East and North Africa region and Francophone
countries. Recently, France and Russia have begun exchanges on defence
cooperation and naval equipment.

Irresponsible transfers
Generally supportive of strict criteria for arms transfers, France has
still supplied arms to countries where there is a substantial risk
that they could be used to commit serious human rights violations. For
example, it supplied weaponry and munitions to Libya under al-Gaddafi,
ammunition and armoured vehicles to both Egypt and Chad, and munitions
to Syria between 2005 and 2009.

Stance on the ATT
France has a progressive position broadly in line with the EU Common
Position on Arms Exports, established along with the UK and other EU
governments. It generally supports inclusion of a binding rule along
the lines of Amnesty International’s Golden Rule. France has pushed
for a comprehensive treaty and robust enforcement mechanisms,
including criminalizing arms trafficking in national laws. However,
there is a risk that France (along with Germany and UK) may bend to US
pressures to water down human rights protection in order to
accommodate China and Russia.

3. Germany
Germany is consistently ranked third, fourth or fifth globally in
terms of the value of its conventional arms exports. Though not a
permanent member of the UN Security Council, as an economic leader in
the EU, a major player in the UN, the Wassenaar Arrangement, OSCE and
other multilateral organisations, Germany’s influence in ATT
negotiations will be significant.

Countries supplied
Germany is one of the largest EU exporters of arms to the Middle East
and North Africa region. Other key customers include South Africa,
Greece, Turkey and other NATO partners, as well as Asian and Latin
American countries.

Irresponsible transfers
Generally supportive of strict criteria for arms transfers, Germany
has nonetheless supplied arms to countries where there is a
substantial risk they could be used to commit human rights violations.
For example, it supplied armoured vehicles to Yemen and to Libya under
al-Gaddafi as well as small arms to Bahrain and Egypt. It has supplied
arms and ammunition to Guatemala and to the Philippines.

Stance on the ATT
Germany’s basic position on the treaty is in line with the EU Common
Position on Arms Exports. It also generally supports inclusion of
Amnesty International’s Golden Rule. The country has a progressive
position on the scope of the treaty and supports the inclusion of
small arms and light weapons as well as munitions. Germany has
emphasized the need for clarity in the ATT on the responsibility of
each state in an arms transaction. As with France and the UK, there is
a risk that Germany may succumb to US pressure to water down the ATT
text on human rights in order to accommodate China and Russia.


4. Russia
Russia is the second largest arms trading country globally by value of
exports and will exert a major influence in ATT negotiations.

Countries supplied
Main customers include India, Syria, Algeria, Myanmar, Venezuela,
Sudan and many African states. However, Russia’s arms industry has
been falling behind in key technologies and it is seeking
sophisticated partners and new markets for many products.

Irresponsible transfers
Russia has supplied arms to several countries where they risk being
used to commit serious human rights violations. It does not publish
arms export details, but 10 per cent of all Russian arms exports are
believed to go to Syria, making it the country’s largest arms
supplier. Transfers include missiles and missile launchers, anti-tank
missiles for the Russian-made T72 tank, and MIG jet fighters jet
aircraft. Russia also supplied AK-style assault rifles to Libya under
al-Gaddafi. Russia continues to supply helicopter gunships to Sudan,
where they have been used to attack civilians in Darfur and Southern
Kordofan.

Stance on the ATT
Russia, like China, appears not to want the treaty to include binding
rules on international human rights, international humanitarian law
and socio-economic development. Russian officials argue that such
rules are interpreted subjectively and ideologically. However, Russia
is already committed to the OSCE and Wassenaar Arrangement, both of
which contain principles to respect international human rights law and
international humanitarian law when considering arms transfers. Russia
also appears comfortable with the ATT covering a wide range of
conventional arms as in the Munitions List of the Wassenaar
Arrangement. Russia believes the focus should be on controlling trade
to avoid diversion into the illicit arms market but the details of its
proposals and views on transparency remain sketchy.


5. UK
The UK consistently ranked third, fourth or fifth globally, along with
France and Germany, in terms of the annual value of its conventional
arms exports.

Countries supplied
Key customers include the USA, India, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and
other NATO partners. It is also a major exporter to other countries in
the Middle East and North Africa, as well as in sub-Saharan Africa.

Irresponsible transfers
Generally supportive of strict criteria for arms transfers, the UK has
nonetheless supplied arms to countries where there is a substantial
risk that they could be used to commit serious violations of human
rights. For example, the UK supplied arms to the Sri Lankan government
knowing of its repression and UK national legislation is being
reviewed following evidence that the UK supplied small arms,
ammunition, munitions and armoured vehicle equipment to Libya under al-
Gaddafi as well as small arms to Bahrain and law enforcement equipment
to Yemen.

Stance on the ATT
In 2005, the UK became the first major arms trading power to support
an Arms Trade Treaty covering human rights. With France it helped
establish the EU code that has now become the EU Common Position on
Arms Exports, the starting point for UK policy positions on the ATT.
It also co-authored various UN General Assembly resolutions between
2006 and 2009 leading to the current negotiations. The UK has
generally supported the Golden Rule and has progressive positions on
the treaty’s scope and implementation mechanisms (for example backing
robust transparency measures). However, as with France and Germany, if
there is not a majority of states pushing for strong rules, the UK
could succumb to US pressure to water down the treaty text on human
rights protection in order to accommodate China and Russia.


6. USA
The United States is by far the world’s largest arms trader,
accounting for around 30 per cent of conventional arms transfers in
terms of value. Its position on the ATT is therefore key.

Countries supplied
The USA supplies arms to more than 170 countries and has a mixed
record of suspending arms supplies on human rights grounds. For
example, it has restricted arms transfers to Myanmar, China, Sri Lanka
and Zimbabwe in addition to countries subject to UN arms embargoes.
However, it has supplied arms to other countries, for example Sri
Lanka, Bahrain, Egypt and Yemen, where there is a substantial risk
that they could be used to commit of facilitate serious human rights
violations.

Irresponsible transfers
As the main arms supplier to Egypt, the US authorized the sale of
small arms, millions of rounds of ammunition and chemical agents for
riot control, despite the security forces’ violent crackdown on
protesters. Yemen was also supplied with small arms, chemical agents
and armoured vehicles, and Bahrain with small arms. It provides
Colombia’s security forces with arms, military aid and training,
despite their persistent violations of human rights.

Stance on the ATT
Since October 2009, when the Obama administration reversed previous
opposition to an ATT, US support has been crucial in getting to the
current negotiation stage. The US has said it wants the treaty to
raise the international standard for export control of armaments as
close as possible to that of the US. However, the US position is
weaker on human rights protection in the treaty than many of its
allies. For example, US officials have not wanted to include
obligations on states to prohibit transfers of arms even where there
is credible evidence of their potential use for serious violations of
human rights. US officials have also argued against including
ammunition under the scope of the treaty, claiming it is too sensitive
and would pose technical problems of implementation. Overall, US
officials would prefer a short loose document that spells out general
principles to “take into account” rather than strong binding measures.
>
>>http://www.upi.com/News_Photos/Features/Worlds-Top-5-arms-exporters/3...

[RD Sandman]

"David J. Hughes" <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote in

news:KoKgt.61$yH...@newsfe01.iad:

However, one negating the Second Amendment would be in conflict with the
Constitution which is our supreme law of the land.

> Reid v. Covert (1957) suggests that the Constitution is supreme, but
> as that case did not involve a treaty, it is merely a suggestion, not
> case law. Under Reid v. Covert, anything less than a confirmed treaty
> is likely to be inferior to the Constitution.
>
> The question has yet to be decided, and you and I can debate it until
> doomsday without a conclusion.
>
> IMO, the Constitution should be supreme over treaties, but the wording
> of the Constitution is, regrettably, open to interpretation.

At least we agree on both of those things.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 10:17:10 -0600, deep wrote:

>On Fri, 03 May 2013 12:11:50 -0400, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 03 May 2013 09:02:36 -0600, deep wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 03 May 2013 10:51:20 -0400, Ed Huntress
>>><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_arms_exports
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That doesn't even come CLOSE to addressing his request.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Fuck, don't you READ cites before posting them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Exactly. The US only sells our $34 billion of weapons, including
>>>>>>200,000 small arms, to "trusted parties." ...heh, heh....
>>>>>
>>>>>The cite didn't support the claim. Perhaps you'd like to help him out?
>>>>
>>>>Hey, I said "exactly," referring to your comment about the Wikipedia
>>>>cite not supporting what was said.
>>>>
>>>Of course it does. Maybe you people need to read it again. Here's a
>>>couple of more.
>>>
>>>http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/big-six-arms-exporters-2012-06-11
>>
>>I get an "Error 503" on that one.
>>
>Works for me.

OK, it came through -- slowly -- this time.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with your point about the US being the
world's largest arms supplier. I was just ducking an argument over the
specifics of Klaus's question.

I didn't bother to check if *his* question was a diversion from *your*
point; I just took the easy way out. d8-)

>
>>
>>>http://www.upi.com/News_Photos/Features/Worlds-Top-5-arms-exporters/3105/
>>
>>I realize that your point that the US is the world's leading arms
>>exporter is correct. But Klaus carefully limited his claim to "selling
>>AK-47 assault rifles and RPG missiles to all those terrorists,
>>insurgents and pirates across the world."
>>
>Of course Klaus et al are going to try to limit the discussion to
>Russian made weapons so that they can artificially show Russia at the
>top of the list. Clearly bogus selective sammpling and lies rather
>than address the real issue.

'Sounds likely to me, but I haven't read the whole thread. Nor will I.
I probably shouldn't have commented except that the article I linkied
to shows that the US is trying to become *less* discriminating about
whom we sell to.

Having researched and written about arms exports, around 12 years ago,
I'm well aware of the enormous lobbying pressure exerted by our arms
industry. They want to sell to anyone with money. Not knowing the
politics of the situation, which probably is a deep
investigative-reporting research job, I don't know why Obama was
trying to ease the reins.

[JohnJohnsn]

On May 3, 11:17 am, Tiefe Scheiße <du...@vlillldm.dnc.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 03 May 2013 12:11:50 -0400, Ed Huntress
> <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 May 2013 09:02:36 -0600, deep wrote:
>
>>> On Fri, 03 May 2013 10:51:20 -0400, Ed Huntress
>>> <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_arms_exports
>
>>>>>>> That doesn't even come CLOSE to addressing his request.
>
>>>>>>> Fuck, don't you READ cites before posting them?
>
>>>>>> Exactly. The US only sells our $34 billion of weapons, including
>>>>>> 200,000 small arms, to "trusted parties." ...heh, heh....
>
>>>>> The cite didn't support the claim. Perhaps you'd like to help him out?
>
>>>> Hey, I said "exactly," referring to your comment about the Wikipedia
>>>> cite not supporting what was said.
>
>>> Of course it does. Maybe you people need to read it again. Here's a
>>> couple of more.
>
>>> http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/big-six-arms-exporters-2012-06-11
>
>> I get an "Error 503" on that one.
>
> Works for me.
>

>>> http://www.upi.com/News_Photos/Features/Worlds-Top-5-arms-exporters/3...

>
>> I realize that your point that the US is the world's leading arms
>> exporter is correct. But Klaus carefully limited his claim to "selling
>> AK-47 assault rifles and RPG missiles to all those terrorists,
>> insurgents and pirates across the world."
>

Watch as Scheißekopf Tiefe Scheiße "leads with his chin": ;)

>
> Of course Klaus et al are going to try to limit the discussion to
> Russian made weapons so that they can artificially show Russia
> at the top of the list. Clearly bogus selective sammpling and lies
> rather than address the real issue.
>

If you peruse the entire Thread you will find that only Tiefe Scheiße
here has mentioned "Russia."

>
>> It was a bit of a misleading question, but that's what it was.
>
>> The US actually *has* passed out a lot of AK-47s. IIRC, we gave a
>> bunch of them to the mujahideen in Afghanistan when they were
>> fighting the Soviets. But I don't think we "sold" them.
>
>> Anyway, my point was a bit off-topic but it was relevant, and I didn't
>> want to get into a tussle over the argument you're having with Klaus.
>> But fire away, by all means.
>
> Just shows you how the psychopath Klause operates.

> Another prime example of how he lies...
>
There was no "lie" posted until we got to yours, Tiefe Scheiße.
>
> ... but just watch him try to turn it into a lie by me.
>
While maybe not a "lie;" it most definitely misinformation, seeing as
how:

Production outside of the Soviet Union/RussiaMilitary variants only.
Includes new designs substantially derived from the Kalashnikov.

Albania
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Bulgaria
Cambodia
People's Republic of China
Colombia
Croatia
Cuba
East Germany
Egypt
Ethiopia
Finland
Hungary
India
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Italy
Nigeria
North Korea
Pakistan
Poland
Romania
South Africa
Sudan
Ukraine
Vietnam
Venezuela
Yugoslavia/Serbia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47#Production_outside_of_the_Soviet_Union.2FRussia

As well as those unauthorized "knock-offs" manufactured by the
"cottage gunsmiths" of the Kyber Pass.

You will note that none 32 source countries (or "area" WRT the Kyber
Pass) are "Russia;" but _all_ are sources of AK-47 and its variants.

And as to "RPGs" (rocket-propelled grenades), like those used by the
Somali pirates against innocent international shipping; while "the
famous RPG-7 is in use with over 40 countries," it is most certainly
"originally-sourced" from Russia:

http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=10

And as perviously noted; the United States _does_NOT_ ""sell...AK-47

assault rifles and RPG missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents
and pirates across the world."

So, Scheißekopf; since it's not the U.S., with all those "sources"
listed above, pick the one(s) that "sell...AK-47 assault rifles and

RPG missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across
the world."

"I would wile away the hours, talkin' with the flowers,
if I only had a braaaaaaaaain."
--Scheißekopf Tiefe Scheiße, Apr 20, 2013

[David J. Hughes]

On 5/3/2013 9:25 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
> "David J. Hughes" <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:OSCgt.26239$zH4....@newsfe13.iad...

>> Treaties rank equally with the Constitution, which suggests that
>> Congress should be VERY careful about entering into treaties.
>>
>
>

> IF a treaty is made UNDER the authority of the Constitution, it has to
> be subservient to the Constitution.
> In effect you are claiming that a treaty is a Constitutional Amendment,
> since that is the ONLY way a treaty can be of equal footing to the
> Constitution - by being a part of it.
>

And right there is the problem.
The Constitution reads "under the Authority of the United States", not
"under the Authority of the Constitution".
The United States is not the Constitution, and the Constitution is not
the United States.

Definition of AUTHORITY

3a : persons in command; specifically : government

Definition of GOVERNMENT

6b capitalized : the executive branch of the United States federal
government

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States
of America."
The President has the "Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present
concur".

In can be argued that the President can make a treaty that violates the
Constitution. The only limitation in the Constitution is the
President's Oath of Office. The Constitution has no prescribed method
of keeping the President from ignoring the Oath, and several Presidents
have done so.

[Gunner Asch]

On Fri, 3 May 2013 09:25:56 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Correct.

[Steve from Colorado]

Sure it does. It's called impeachment.

[William December Starr]

In article <km0hdl$9s7$2...@dont-email.me>,

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com> said:

> IF a treaty is made UNDER the authority of the Constitution, it
> has to be subservient to the Constitution.

Why?

-- wds

[David J. Hughes]

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Oath breaking is neither Treason, Bribery, a high Crime nor a Misdemeanor.

As the saying goes, a verbal contract is worth the paper it is written on.

Such a treaty MIGHT be Treason, with is strictly defined in the
Constitution:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>>>>>>>>Prove it, Schei�ekopf.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>>>>>>>>missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>>>>>>>>world.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_arms_exports
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That doesn't even come CLOSE to addressing his request.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Fuck, don't you READ cites before posting them?
>>>>>
>>>>>Exactly. The US only sells our $34 billion of weapons, including
>>>>>200,000 small arms, to "trusted parties." ...heh, heh....
>>>>
>>>>The cite didn't support the claim. Perhaps you'd like to help him out?
>>>
>>>It most certainly does you lying ass.
>>
>>You can't read. Can you?
>>
>
>Fuck off you lying piece of shit.

[chuckle]

Temper, temper. Here, let me repeat what was written for you.

Again.

>>>>>>>>Prove it, Schei�ekopf.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>>>>>>>>missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>>>>>>>>world.

>The issue is about ALL arms. The claim about AKs was yours.

You're so fucked in the head you can't even remember who you're
talking to any more, can you?

>Now you try to defend whatever idiotic
>point you are trying to make.

Easy. You were asked:

>>>>>>>>Prove it, Schei�ekopf.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>>>>>>>>missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>>>>>>>>world.

And you posted a link which did NOT show those things.

>But all your's doing is avoiding the
>truth by trying to change the argument. Once again. Your lame ass
>tricks don't work loser.

Too funny. You couldn't answer the question, which was

>>>>>>>>Prove it, Schei�ekopf.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>>>>>>>>missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>>>>>>>>world.

So you posted a link to something else and claimed everyone ELSE is
trying to change the subject.

>Here, once again, this is what I said:
>
>>>>>>>>> The US is the world's larget exported of arms and advance military
>>>>>>>>> weaponry. Big money in that stuff. No wonder the rightards are
>>>>>>>>> against any regulation.
>
>That's exactly true, and my links proved it.

Then someone else- not me- said

>>>>>>>>Prove it, Schei�ekopf.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>>>>>>>>missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>>>>>>>>world.

>Now shut the fuck up you pathological freak.

Calm down, son.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 09:26:16 -0600, deep wrote:

>On Fri, 03 May 2013 08:19:33 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 03 May 2013 09:02:36 -0600, deep wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 03 May 2013 10:51:20 -0400, Ed Huntress
>>><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_arms_exports
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That doesn't even come CLOSE to addressing his request.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Fuck, don't you READ cites before posting them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Exactly. The US only sells our $34 billion of weapons, including
>>>>>>200,000 small arms, to "trusted parties." ...heh, heh....
>>>>>
>>>>>The cite didn't support the claim. Perhaps you'd like to help him out?
>>>>
>>>>Hey, I said "exactly," referring to your comment about the Wikipedia
>>>>cite not supporting what was said.
>>>>
>>>Of course it does. Maybe you people need to read it again.
>>
>>Here is what you were responding to- AGAIN.
>>
>>>>>>>>Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>>>>>>>>missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>>>>>>>>world.
>>
>>
>>NOTHING about "who exports the most arms."
>>
>>Fuck-- are you REALLY this stupid?
>
>You pathetic lying little cocksucker you're still up to your same old
>lame tricks. I NEVER said anything about AKs.

And I never claimed you did.

Try reading for comprehension, if that's even possible.

>>>>>>>>Prove it, Schei�ekopf.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Show us where the U.S. is selling AK-47 assault rifles and RPG
>>>>>>>>missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across the
>>>>>>>>world.

You're "Schei�ekopf" in case you didn't know.

[Steve from Colorado]

As Obama is doing in Mexico. Mexico, a narcotics exporting nation that
uses our porous border to traffic in heroin, methamphetamines, and to
ethnically cleanse it's underclass of color is an enemy nation as much
as North Korea, Cuba, or Somalia is.

[CanopyCo]

On May 3, 11:10 am, deep wrote:
>
> Maybe you ignorant assholes should actually go back and read what I
> posted and how the links I provided prove that point.  Ask Klaus why
> he brought up AKs and RPGs when the issue was clearly about total arms
> exportation not just Russian made ones.  It's obviuos why Klaus had to
> once again attempt to lie his way around the truth.

When a american buys something imported and then sells it, is that
still a export?

Ever see Lord of War?

[CanopyCo]

On May 3, 12:07 pm, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47#Production_outside_of_the_Soviet_U...

>
> As well as those unauthorized "knock-offs" manufactured by the
> "cottage gunsmiths" of the Kyber Pass.
>
> You will note that none 32 source countries (or "area" WRT the Kyber
> Pass) are "Russia;" but _all_ are sources of AK-47 and its variants.
>
> And as to "RPGs" (rocket-propelled grenades), like those used by the
> Somali pirates against innocent international shipping; while "the
> famous RPG-7 is in use with over 40 countries," it is most certainly
> "originally-sourced" from Russia:
>
> http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=10
>
> And as perviously noted; the United States _does_NOT_ ""sell...AK-47
> assault rifles and RPG missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents
> and pirates across the world."
>
> So, Scheißekopf; since it's not the U.S., with all those "sources"
> listed above, pick the one(s) that "sell...AK-47 assault rifles and
> RPG missiles to all those terrorists, insurgents and pirates across
> the world."
>
> "I would wile away the hours, talkin' with the flowers,
>  if I only had a braaaaaaaaain."
> --Scheißekopf Tiefe Scheiße,  Apr 20, 2013

[rbowman]

CanopyCo wrote:

> Ever see Lord of War?

That's the only Nicolas Cage movie I've liked. He does sleazy arms dealer
very well.

[SaPeIsMa]

"rbowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message
news:aul13r...@mid.individual.net...

He generally does sleazy pretty well.

[RD Sandman]

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in news:km1glr$hdr$1
@panix2.panix.com:

It is UNDER the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the land.

[William December Starr]

In article <XnsA1B690BA...@216.196.121.131>,

RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> said:

> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote

>> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> IF a treaty is made UNDER the authority of the Constitution, it
>>> has to be subservient to the Constitution.
>>
>> Why?
>
> It is UNDER the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the land.

"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;"

(1) It says "Authority of the United States" and not "Authority of
this Constitution," (1a) it _doesn't_ require that Treaties be made
in pursuance of the Constitution, the way that Laws of the United
States must be, and (2) what does "under the Authority of" mean?

It may be that the only requirement for a treaty to become part of
the supreme Law of the Land is that it be made in the manner
specified in Article II, section 2: "[The President] shall have

Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make

Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur."

-- wds

[Tom]

On May 4, 8:25 pm, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <XnsA1B690BA3808hopew...@216.196.121.131>,

> RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> said:
>

> > wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote

> >> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >>> IF a treaty is made UNDER the authority of the Constitution, it
> >>> has to be subservient to the Constitution.
>
> >> Why?
>
> > It is UNDER the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the land.
>
> "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;"
>
> (1) It says "Authority of the United States" and not "Authority of
> this Constitution," (1a) it _doesn't_ require that Treaties be made
> in pursuance of the Constitution, the way that Laws of the United
> States must be, and (2) what does "under the Authority of" mean?
>
> It may be that the only requirement for a treaty to become part of
> the supreme Law of the Land is that it be made in the manner
> specified in Article II, section 2: "[The President] shall have
> Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make
> Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur."
>
> -- wds

Doesn't seem as if words have lost all meaning to these people? They
just assign their own definitions to words so they will fit their
reality.

Truly frightening.

Tom

[Scout]

"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:km4cdn$ij1$1...@panix2.panix.com...

> In article <XnsA1B690BA...@216.196.121.131>,
> RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> said:
>
>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote
>>> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> IF a treaty is made UNDER the authority of the Constitution, it
>>>> has to be subservient to the Constitution.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> It is UNDER the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the land.
>
> "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;"
>
> (1) It says "Authority of the United States" and not "Authority of
> this Constitution," (1a) it _doesn't_ require that Treaties be made
> in pursuance of the Constitution, the way that Laws of the United
> States must be, and (2) what does "under the Authority of" mean?

Excuse me, but the Unites States government has ONLY that authority
specifically granted by the Constitution and is constrained against doing
anything else by that same legal instrument.

As such, the AUTHORITY of the United States to enact treaties concerning
internal affairs is strictly limited by the Constitution.

The US government has no more authority to accept a treaty that guns in the
United States will be banned, than they do to enact such legislation to
directly ban guns in the United States.
Nor could they ban importation of guns via international commerce because
that would also violate the prohibitions on the powers of the US government.
Now, they could agree to prohibit the EXPORT of guns, since that does not
violate the rights of the US people.

So, I agree treaties are enacted under the Authority of the United States,
and that authority is specifically limited by the Constitution of the United
States of America.

In case you just missed it....the argument that any treaty could be enacted
has just been shot down in flames using YOUR own point.

[Gunner Asch]

On 4 May 2013 21:25:11 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December

So if the US signs a treaty with China that gives up the right to
free speech of Americans..you are claiming that it would be legal, and
Constitutional?

Gunner

[David J. Hughes]

So, the US cannot muffle the press, forbid assembly, conduct searches
and seizures without warrants, quarter troops in private homes without
the consent of the owner, or imprison citizens without trial?
Yet Presidents have ordered all of these, under the Authority of the
United States, as the head of the Government.

[Scout]

"David J. Hughes" <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote in message

news:wRlht.42206$YR4...@newsfe28.iad...

Certainly. However, I believe you are harboring under the delusion that just
because they did it.....it was proper and Constitutional for them to do so.

See, anyone with even a bit of intelligence understands that government
tends to grow and push the limits of it's power and authority and can even
start doing things it's not suppose to. Unchecked, it results in tyranny.
The idea of the checks and balances set up in our government is to help
prevent that. But the Founding Fathers also realized that nothing is perfect
and abuses would occur. Hence the checks and balances. In fact the
Declaration of Independence talks pretty clearly about the role of
government, and how it can cease to serve that purpose and what may be
necessary when that occurs.

Now personally I would prefer the country and the Constitution to continue
for another 200 years or more. You seem to wish to see both come to an end.

Why is that?

[David J. Hughes]

You misapprehend my position.
Many years ago I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution
against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I have never been released
from that oath, and follow it to this day.
I also understand that the Constitution was, in some respects, poorly
written, leading to libraries full of debate over what was intended.
In this discussion, I have taken my common role as the Devil's Advocate,
pointing out the problems in the wording of the Constitution concerning
the supremacy of treaties and the Constitution, which permits more than
one interpretation.
This debate is not new, the question of which is supreme, treaties or
the Constitution, has come up several times over the last 200 years,
and, as yet, there has been no clear cut resolution of the question.

I am shedding light on the danger of entering into any treaty that may
have unintended consequences, consequences that may have dire effects on
the country during the time between the treaty goes into effect and the
possible overturning and revocation of the treaty (and possibly for many
years after), be it by the Supreme Court, the Legislature, the Executive
Office, or armed revolution establishing a new Government.

I would much prefer that the President tell the rest of the world "I'm
sorry, but the laws of my country prevent me from entering into this
treaty" than ever taking the risk of entering into a treaty that
conflicts with the Constitution.

[David J. Hughes]

Addenda:
I concur that past Presidents have taken actions that were improper and
unconstitutional.
However, they did those actions with the Authority of the United States,
as the head of the Executive Office.
With the passage of time, some of those actions have been properly
recognized as improper and unconstitutional, but rarely until many years
after the president concerned was dead.

Given the current world situation (economic, ecologic, political), I'm
not sure we have that kind of time if the President makes a poor
decision.

[RD Sandman]

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in news:km4cdn$ij1$1
@panix2.panix.com:

Go ahead and worry yourself to death over something that ain't gunna
happen.

[RD Sandman]

"David J. Hughes" <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote in news:wRlht.42206
$YR4...@newsfe28.iad:

Because Congress and the courts have LET them do it. So do weak people.
Look at the difference in furor over GWB and Obama doing the same things
or running the same policies.

[JohnJohnsn]

On May 5, 3:32 am, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon,net> wrote:
>
>
> "David J. Hughes" <davidjhughes...@netzero.com> wrote in

> message news:wRlht.42206$YR4...@newsfe28.iad...
>
>> On 5/4/2013 10:57 PM, Scout wrote:
>

>>>"William December Starr" <wdst...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>> news:km4cdn$ij1$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>
>>>> In article <XnsA1B690BA3808hopew...@216.196.121.131>,
>>>> RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast,net> said:
>
>>>>> wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote

Witness Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus (Ex parte Merryman) and
Roosevelt's National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the first
version of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA): all held by the
SCotUS as unconstitutional.

>
> Unchecked, it results in tyranny.
> The idea of the checks and balances set up in our government is to help
> prevent that. But the Founding Fathers also realized that nothing is perfect
> and abuses would occur. Hence the checks and balances. In fact the
> Declaration of Independence talks pretty clearly about the role of
> government, and how it can cease to serve that purpose and what may be
> necessary when that occurs.
>
> Now personally I would prefer the country and the Constitution to continue
> for another 200 years or more. You seem to wish to see both come to an end.
>
> Why is that?
>

"If `PROgress' means to `move forward,' what does `CONgress'
represent?" ;)

[Scout]

"David J. Hughes" <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote in message

news:Mvpht.53926$zt4....@newsfe15.iad...

On the contrary, it is well written and quite clear. The debate is when
people don't want to be held to what is written and they 'invent'
interpretations to allow them to do more than that which is written.

> In this discussion, I have taken my common role as the Devil's Advocate,
> pointing out the problems in the wording of the Constitution concerning
> the supremacy of treaties and the Constitution, which permits more than
> one interpretation.

Yep, and the federal government has no authority beyond that which is
granted by the Constitution and that power is limited as well by the
Constitution.

So if the government can't infringe upon the right of the people to keep and
bear arms....then such a government can also NOT enter into a treaty to do
so.

> This debate is not new, the question of which is supreme, treaties or the
> Constitution, has come up several times over the last 200 years, and, as
> yet, there has been no clear cut resolution of the question.

Yea, and just like the 2nd Amendment the issue isn't a lack of clarity in
what is said, but a refusal of people to enforce the limits of what is
clearly stated.

[Scout]

"David J. Hughes" <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote in message

news:bJpht.42188$Sm1....@newsfe23.iad...

Addenda.

If they were improper and unconstitutional then they weren't done under the
Authority of the United States.

QED.

That it took years to get that improper and unconstitutional act reversed by
authority is IMO the real issue.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:km669d$327$1...@dont-email.me:

Well said.

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1B776241...@216.196.121.131...

Thank you.

[David J. Hughes]

Enjoy your close minded, starry eyed idealism, and I sincerely hope you
never are involved with lawyers, as they will eat you alive.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Tom" <drs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fd23f14b-a6b7-493d...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

On May 4, 8:25 pm, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <XnsA1B690BA3808hopew...@216.196.121.131>,
> RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> said:
>
> > wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote
> >> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >>> IF a treaty is made UNDER the authority of the Constitution, it
> >>> has to be subservient to the Constitution.
>
> >> Why?
>
> > It is UNDER the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the land.
>
> "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;"
>
> (1) It says "Authority of the United States" and not "Authority of
> this Constitution," (1a) it _doesn't_ require that Treaties be made
> in pursuance of the Constitution, the way that Laws of the United
> States must be, and (2) what does "under the Authority of" mean?
>
> It may be that the only requirement for a treaty to become part of
> the supreme Law of the Land is that it be made in the manner
> specified in Article II, section 2: "[The President] shall have
> Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make
> Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur."
>
> -- wds

#
#
#
# Doesn't seem as if words have lost all meaning to these people? They
# just assign their own definitions to words so they will fit their
# reality.
#
# Truly frightening.
#
#


Indeed
It's like the line out of Alice in Wonderland
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

[Scout]

"David J. Hughes" <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote in message

news:I%Dht.43486$YR4...@newsfe28.iad...

You've produced nothing to contest what I had to say so what is there to
change my mind about?

[David J. Hughes]

I've offered up precise definitions and Supreme Court decisions to
demonstrate that there is room for debate.
You have offered up your opinion.

I don't expect you to change your mind.
I would like you to be aware that the powers that be may not share your
opinion.
I would also like you to be aware that even if the powers that be share
your opinion, that will not prevent (may even encourage) them from
taking actions that could be decades in reversing.

[Scout]

"David J. Hughes" <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote in message

news:yMFht.21729$VE....@newsfe25.iad...

Excuse me, but that is simply circular logic in which you prove there is
supposedly debate in the meaning by showing those willing to ignore the
clear meaning that exists trying to invent alternative meanings.

[David J. Hughes]

If the meaning can be debated, then it is not clear.
The Constitution was written by committee, with all the problems
inherent in any document written by committee.

"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 Constitution shall be the supreme Law of the Land.
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 under this
Constitution.
The Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The first has room of debate, the second does not.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

"Congress shall make no law limiting the right of the people to keep and
bear arms."

The second would have prevented 200 years of debate.

[Scout]

"David J. Hughes" <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote in message

news:MoIht.17634$L55....@newsfe03.iad...

Sorry, but just because some people refuse to accept the meaning, doesn't
mean it isn't clear.

You're going to have to come up with something better than circular logic if
you expect me to give you any serious consideration. You've already run
through your initial quota.

[David J. Hughes]

Repeating what I wrote earlier:
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote in Missouri v. Holland (1920)
"Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in
pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when
made under the authority of the United States. It is open to question
whether the authority of the United States means more than the formal
acts prescribed to make the convention."

I am not using circular logic, I am arguing from authority.

A Supreme Court Associate Justice presumably knows far more about the US
Constitution than either of us.
If Holmes felt there was grounds for debate, I will yield to his expertise.

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 03:02:14 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
<davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote:

>A Supreme Court Associate Justice presumably knows far more about the US
>Constitution than either of us.
>If Holmes felt there was grounds for debate, I will yield to his expertise.

So you are claiming Dred Scott still stands??????

[David J. Hughes]

On 5/6/2013 8:39 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Mon, 06 May 2013 03:02:14 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
> <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>> A Supreme Court Associate Justice presumably knows far more about the US
>> Constitution than either of us.
>> If Holmes felt there was grounds for debate, I will yield to his expertise.
>
> So you are claiming Dred Scott still stands??????
>

Nope, superseded by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.


That's the proper way to change the Constitution.

Anything in the Constitution that can be re-interpretated can be
re-re-interpretated at a later date.

An Amendment provides a definitive interpretation that is very hard to
change later.

[David J. Hughes]

On 5/4/2013 10:57 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>

[David J. Hughes]

On 5/6/2013 8:39 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

> On Mon, 06 May 2013 03:02:14 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
> <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>> A Supreme Court Associate Justice presumably knows far more about the US
>> Constitution than either of us.
>> If Holmes felt there was grounds for debate, I will yield to his expertise.
>
> So you are claiming Dred Scott still stands??????
>
>
>

[SaPeIsMa]

"David J. Hughes" <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:FPlht.33235$zH4....@newsfe13.iad...

<sigh>
Sure, government can do illegal things
Even more so when there are a whole bunch of people willing to let them get
away with it.
Does not make it any more legal or right nonetheless.

[SaPeIsMa]

"David J. Hughes" <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:3tPht.23487$YJ....@newsfe11.iad...

> On 5/6/2013 8:39 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 May 2013 03:02:14 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
>> <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A Supreme Court Associate Justice presumably knows far more about the US
>>> Constitution than either of us.
>>> If Holmes felt there was grounds for debate, I will yield to his
>>> expertise.
>>
>> So you are claiming Dred Scott still stands??????
>>
>>
>>
>
> Nope, superseded by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
>
>
> That's the proper way to change the Constitution.
>
> Anything in the Constitution that can be re-interpretated can be
> re-re-interpretated at a later date.
>

Only if your a liberal who knows that's the ONLY way you have to change the
meaning and intent of the Constitution

> An Amendment provides a definitive interpretation that is very hard to
> change later.
>

So does a legal clarification such as Heller and MacDonald.

[WangoTango]

In article <FPlht.33235$zH4....@newsfe13.iad>,
davidjh...@netzero.com says...

You can cherry pick individual instances of wrong doing, BUT it doesn't
change anything he said.

[RD Sandman]

"David J. Hughes" <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote in news:FPlht.33235
$zH4....@newsfe13.iad:

Hmmm, when was the last time troops were quartered in priate homes
without consent?

[David J. Hughes]

1940's for homes in the US, 1980's for homes in US territories.

[Professor Bubba]

In article <XnsA1B97EE26...@216.196.121.131>, RD Sandman

<rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:

> Hmmm, when was the last time troops were quartered in priate homes
> without consent?

The *only* on-point Third Amendment case that has ever gone to court
was in 1982:

[T]he Third Amendment has proven to be one of the least-litigated
sections of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has never directly
reviewed the meaning of the amendment. Indeed, only one court has ever
confronted the meaning of the amendment, in a case decided nearly 200
years after it was ratified: Engblom v. Carey, 677 F. 2d 957 (2d Cir.
1982), on remand 572 F. Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), aff'd. per curiam 724
F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1983).

Engblom grew out of a "statewide strike of correction officers, when
they were evicted from their facility-residences ... and members of the
National Guard were housed in their residences without their consent."
The district court initially granted summary judgment for the
defendants in a suit brought by the officers claiming a deprivation of
their rights under the Third Amendment. The Second Circuit Court of
Appeals, however, reversed on the ground that it could not "say that as
a matter of law appellants were not entitled to the protection of the
Third Amendment." 677 F.2d at 964. On remand, however, the District
Court held that because the officers' Third Amendment rights had not
been clearly established at the time of the strike, the defendants were
protected from suit by a qualified immunity, and this decision was
upheld by the Second Circuit.

— Jol A. Silversmith (May 2000)


<http://www.thirdamendment.com/third.html>

[RD Sandman]

"David J. Hughes" <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote in

news:jfeit.77045$oP1....@newsfe08.iad:

Do you have a cite for that?

[RD Sandman]

Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote in
news:070520131725314105%bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid:

So, it was a circuit decision, not USSC and housing was government
provided not private. The incident happened while public employees
(corrections officers) were on strike from that government. They got
replaced with NG troops, another government entity.

Thanks.

[David J. Hughes]

Not immediately available.
IIRC, during WWII, officers and their families were housed in residences
belonging to Americans of Japanese descent who had been moved to
relocation camps.

1980 was in the Panama Zone, once again officers been housed in private
residences.

[RD Sandman]

"David J. Hughes" <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote in news:bzhit.77115
$oP1....@newsfe08.iad:

The only court case presented was over government supplied housing for
corrections officers who were on strike.

[Scout]

"David J. Hughes" <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:FPlht.33235$zH4....@newsfe13.iad...

Already addressed and refuted.