rice in UN


PDA






SundownRider
December 2, 2008, 12:03 PM
Just looking for some clarification. With the creation of UN Ambassador as a cabinet position, doesn't this mean that Obama is looking to eliminate or guns through treaty, which supersedes the constitution? On a side note, isn,t the appointment of Hillary a violation of the constitution, Article I, Section 6?

If you enjoyed reading about "rice in UN" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
nwilliams
December 2, 2008, 12:14 PM
I wouldn't worry about it. Obama will probably try and impose some harsh gun control laws and another AWB but I don't see an all out ban as being very likely.

Thin Black Line
December 2, 2008, 12:30 PM
Start researching UN, Small Arms, Disarmament, Transparency, etc. I was
doing this back in the 90s and I would be happy to see more people take
up the baton. I see absolutely no reason why the new administration
wouldn't consider this backdoor approach.

The best attacks consist of both overt and covert methods. And the worst
ones always involve lawyers working an angle via "loophole".

ServiceSoon
December 2, 2008, 01:05 PM
If we can buy guns without using the Brady system (gunsshow loop-hole) why can't the ruler of this country use a loop-hole to past their agenda?

Art Eatman
December 2, 2008, 01:26 PM
We've had a number of fairly knowledgeable folks present evidence/argument that no treaty of the UN would supercede the Constitution. So, let's drop that subject. And Obama's possible "aims" are political, not legal.

Commentary about Article I, Section 6, and the appointment of Senator Clinton as SecState, however, are up for discussion.

Walkalong
December 2, 2008, 01:33 PM
We've had a number of fairly knowledgeable folks present evidence/argument that no treaty of the UN would supercede the Constitution. That is good news, and I pray they are right. :)

ServiceSoon
December 2, 2008, 01:38 PM
Article 1 Section 6 of US Constitution: No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.Seems easy to understand by me.

zombienerd
December 2, 2008, 01:43 PM
Article 1 Section 6 of US Constitution: No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.
Seems easy to understand by me.

So, all I'm seeing is that she'd have to resign first, I think that section just means nobody can hold BOTH positions.

Thin Black Line
December 2, 2008, 01:45 PM
the appointment of Senator Clinton as SecState, however, are up for discussion

Well, this could get interesting [TBL puts bag of popcorn in microwave]

Nickotym
December 2, 2008, 01:47 PM
As I read it, Sec of State would be unavailable to Clinton if she was part of the Congress when changes were made to the position. To my knowledge no changes were made in recent years, so she is cleared to hold Sec of State.

Art Eatman
December 2, 2008, 01:54 PM
It looks like the key phrase that folks are looking at is, "...during the time for which he was elected..."

IOW, she's seen as ineligible during the six years from when she was sworn in as senator.

Thin Black Line
December 2, 2008, 01:56 PM
Art, are you saying some rules still apply?

Lone_Gunman
December 2, 2008, 02:05 PM
With the creation of UN Ambassador as a cabinet position, doesn't this mean that Obama is looking to eliminate or guns through treaty, which supersedes the constitution?

Being a member of the cabinet or not should make no difference.

And Obama's possible "aims" are political, not legal.

That statement simply is untrue. I know the moderators don't want political discussion here, but to say that Obama's aims are political and not legal makes no since at this point. He has been elected, and the politics part is over for now. Every policy and action he takes as president is clearly in the realm of law and legal issues.

It looks like the key phrase that folks are looking at is, "...during the time for which he was elected..."

I agree that is the key phrase, and if we interpret that statement strictly, I think it means she can't be Ambassador until the end of the Senate term for which she was elected. If she resigns with two years of that term left, I don't think she could serve until after that two years have passed.

Personally, I would be happy to move her to UN Ambassador, and get her out of the Senate.

Titan6
December 2, 2008, 02:28 PM
May you live in interesting times.

Given that the new adminstration goals are:

End the Dangerous Cycle of Youth Violence: Obama and Biden support innovative local programs, like the CeaseFire program in Chicago, which implement a community-based strategy to prevent youth violence and have been proven effective.
Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

I don't think a little thing like the constitution and civil liberties are going to get in the way. I just want to know how they are going to make guns "child proof" didn't they try that with medicine bottle already?

Titan6
December 2, 2008, 02:31 PM
But enough about that. I would say legally she can not serve for two years. But that won't stop them.

Thin Black Line
December 2, 2008, 02:40 PM
I don't think a little thing like the constitution and civil liberties are going to get in the way.

It didn't with Habeas Corpus.

That's why I don't trust these people --none of these people-- with maintaining
the 2A or following much else in the BoR or the Constitution. They'll just
concoct a reason to suspend whatever parts they don't agree with and
just do whatever they want anyway.

I understand there are still some people out there who would follow things
to the letter, but unfortunately I don't see any of them in a position of
power.

Except for Art, but that's just a position of power on THR. But, wait a
second...Art for POTUS!

Art, can I be Secretary of Agriculture? I will work for popcorn or peanuts.

everallm
December 2, 2008, 03:27 PM
Look, I don't like the waste of oxygen Clinton either, but why do people persist in trying to make ups spurious BS based on the inability to read plain English.......

Article 1 Section 6 means just what it says

No double dipping
No creating a new secondary position and appointing yourself to it as well
If you are a Congressman or Senator you can't be in an appointed/Cabinent role as well
You want to be Secretary of State for Pork you quit your other jobs

What's so hard to understand ?

Titan6
December 2, 2008, 03:28 PM
Well alright but I want dibs on Homeland Security. I will work for Class III weapons.

yeti
December 2, 2008, 03:38 PM
If they didn't create the office, or raise the salary of the office holder, during her elected term, she can resign her Senate seat and legally become Secretary of State.

Dodgeit
December 2, 2008, 03:43 PM
Hillary is ineligable to hold the office because she voted for a salary increase for that position. The problem is who will bring suit to stop it?

yeti
December 2, 2008, 04:02 PM
Hillary is ineligable to hold the office because she voted for a salary increase for that position.

Actually, it looks like the Sec. State's salary increase was done by Executive order, not a Senate vote, but A1S6 just says if it is increased, not how, so I guess Hilary has a little trouble coming. Don't worry, a way around the Constitution will be found.

Jorg Nysgerrig
December 2, 2008, 04:21 PM
With the creation of UN Ambassador as a cabinet position, doesn't this mean that Obama is looking to eliminate or guns through treaty, which supersedes the constitution?

This seems like a fairly large leap of logic. Not everything is about you and your guns.

SundownRider
December 2, 2008, 07:16 PM
When was this about me? I was asking about a possible way for the incoming administration to achieve by treaty that which they can't otherwise. The last AWB got the Dems their rear ends handed to them in the next election.
And this forum is about guns.

Jorg Nysgerrig
December 2, 2008, 07:45 PM
You are the one who put forth the ridiculous assertion that making the ambassador to the UN a cabinet level position was somehow an end run to get our guns. You might find this shocking, but not everything Obama does is about getting your guns.

Geno
December 2, 2008, 08:08 PM
Titan6 said:

Well alright but I want dibs on Homeland Security. I will work for Class III weapons.

Personally, I like Obama's idea of redistribution. I think we should bail-out the military, then redistribute all of the ammo, the clothes, the food rations <<strike that>>. Well, you get the point. Vote me!! :D

Doc2005

Art Eatman
December 2, 2008, 08:56 PM
yeti, I'm losing track of dates: When was Hillary sworn in, and when was the SecState's pay increased?

Lone_Gunman, those ideas of Obama's are political goals. They become subjects for this forum when specifics are spelled out and bills are introduced in Congress or are created by Executive Order. Same for Titan6's quote in his post.

TBL, it looks to me as though rules rarely apply. IMO, most congressfolks regard the Constitution as an impediment to their doing whatever they want. However, I do occasionally play, "Let's pretend." :)

ServiceSoon
December 2, 2008, 11:07 PM
You are the one who put forth the ridiculous assertion that making the ambassador to the UN a cabinet level position was somehow an end run to get our guns. You might find this shocking, but not everything Obama does is about getting your guns.Maybe we should talk about puppies, oh wait, this is a message board about guns :neener: As far as everybody on this message board is concerned, everything [insert politicians name] does is about infringing on their RKBA. If you don't want to dicuss these ideas I suggest this (www.yahoo.com) website.

ServiceSoon
December 2, 2008, 11:12 PM
yeti, I'm losing track of dates: When was Hillary sworn in, and when was the SecState's pay increased?Won re-election November 7th, 2006 & sworn in January 3rd 2007.

ServiceSoon
December 2, 2008, 11:15 PM
More reading: http://volokh.com/posts/1227562708.shtml

tpaw
December 2, 2008, 11:19 PM
rice in UN

Don't loose sleep over it, the UN means nothing anymore. Just a formality.

Hanafuda
December 2, 2008, 11:38 PM
Nixon skipped around the emoluments clause too, so if Obama does he won't be the first. Nixon made Sen. Wm. Saxbe the Attorney General even though Saxbe had voted for a pay raise for the AG position while a Senator. Nixon simply lowered the AG's salary to the level it was before the vote for the duration of Saxbe's service as AG. Apparently that made enough members of Congress happy that it was allowed.

Flyboy
December 3, 2008, 12:04 AM
Hanafuda nailed it: by taking the position at the previous salary, the issue of the raise is neatly sidestepped.

everallm
December 3, 2008, 07:27 AM
The issue is completely moot.

The intent of the law is to prevent an individual voting themselves a pay raise by raising the pay of a position they then intend to take.

Unless we are going to move into real multi layer tin foil hat land NOBODY thinks that Clinton spent tens of millions running intended to become Sec State and not President.

Drop the point and get over the fact that the Democrats won this cycle and stop trying to come up with weasely bits of bull.

CentralTexas
December 3, 2008, 05:39 PM
" And Obama's possible "aims" are political, not legal." Ergo, not for discussion here.

Art, Websters defines political as "1 a: of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government b: of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy" Since Congress makes the laws, almost always based on political philosophy, what do you consider the difference? Since quite often the President sets the agenda and especially when there is a compliant Congress they seem to be intertwined enough that there is no seperation.

"Commentary about Article I, Section 6, and the appointment of Senator Clinton as SecState, however, are up for discussion."

While this may be a legal issue that the courts may likely resolve, I don't see the tie into firearms. Am I missing something here?

Lone_Gunman
December 3, 2008, 07:54 PM
Since Congress makes the laws, almost always based on political philosophy, what do you consider the difference? Since quite often the President sets the agenda and especially when there is a compliant Congress they seem to be intertwined enough that there is no seperation.

The moderators were having a hard time keeping political discussion out after it was banned, and so they have a pretty low threshold for closing things that have both legal and political aspects. I can deal with that, it is after all their board and we are just visitors.

This started when Ron Paul was running for the Republican nomination, and about every other new thread dealt with him. I think there are also a fair number of Obama supporters, and so they don't want to hear a lot of anti-Obama discussion.

Coronach
December 3, 2008, 08:10 PM
Art, Websters defines political as "1 a: of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government b: of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy" Since Congress makes the laws, almost always based on political philosophy, what do you consider the difference? Since quite often the President sets the agenda and especially when there is a compliant Congress they seem to be intertwined enough that there is no seperation.The purpose of this forum is to address legal issues of existing or pending legislation or caselaw, or constitutional law and its attendant caselaw, and the impact that this has on RKBA. The purpose of this forum is not to debate political maneuvering, wrangling, horsetrading, backscratching, or the probable positions that individual actors in the political scene may or may not take on legislation that may or may not ever be put forward.

Basically, if it is existing law, and you have a question about it, or would like to raise an issue about something that is already on the books, it is on topic. If we're talking about what Obama and his administration may or may not do after Jan 20th, it is pretty much OT. Same if we're talking about republican responses, or tactics. 'Urgent' discussion of legislation that is about to be under vote can be done in the Activism, but it MUST center around things we can do to influence the outcome of the vote.

Basically, the tendency is for all the RKBA folks to gather together like a flock of clucking chickens when something is about to happen. Strongly worded posts are posted, fists are shaken, choirs are preached to, the phrase "from my cold dead hands" gets so overused that Staples has a run on the keys F,R,O,M,Y,C,L,D,E,A,H,N, and S- and no one goes out and does anything. We've noted this trend for years now, and we've decided that the best thing to do is not provide a time-sink for everyone to sit around and pound their keyboard in, and to encourage activism when possible. So, if you want to be involved in politics, be an activist. If you want to sit around and get angry with each other, there's a whole lot of internet left.

As was said, there is not a bright-line distinction between "legal" and "political". We understand that one influences the other. Common sense can lead you to differentiate between the two nine times out of ten.

Mike

Lone_Gunman
December 3, 2008, 08:21 PM
I understand the distinction that is trying to be made. But not allowing political discussion of upcoming antigun matters, simply because they have not yet been introduced in Congress or signed into law by the President, really puts gun owners at a disadvantage.

It is better for me to not smoke, and thus avoid getting lung cancer, than it is for me to get lung cancer, and then try to cure it with chemotherapy. Similarly, we need to prevent anti gun politicians from ever being elected, and they block every move they make once they get elected. The only sure way to do this is to know what they are planning before they introduce bills into congress. You don't want to get into a war before you prepare for a war.

Strongly worded posts are posted, fists are shaken, choirs are preached to, the phrase "from my cold dead hands" gets so overused that Staples has a run on the keys F,R,O,M,Y,C,L,D,E,A,H,N, and S- and no one goes out and does anything.

Now, Coronach, you have no way of knowing whether that is true or not. For all we know, someone reads about an anti-gun politician here, gets fired up, and writes their Congressperson immediately. Actually I suspect this has happened frequently. I know I have used this forum to learn about new and upcoming anti-gun politics, and then written or called my elected officials to voice my complaints.

I am not trying to start anything, especially with a good moderator, but I think these things need to be considered, and hope that they have been.

Thin Black Line
December 5, 2008, 11:48 AM
Basically, if it is existing law, and you have a question about it, or would like to raise an issue about something that is already on the books, it is on topic. If we're talking about what Obama and his administration may or may not do after Jan 20th, it is pretty much OT.

Agreed. Let's keep our eyes and ears open for pending legislation and verbal
statements from the executive and legislative branches about such legislation
and how they intend to vote and sign into law such legislation. I think a lot
of past statements by these people regarding their stance on firearm ownership
in this country and how they would like to see it changed is on the record.

So, yes, no need to re-hash that ad nauseum in the legal section.

However, let us never be in a the position after the fact of saying among
ourselves "How did that law get passed? Why did I not know about it? I
can't believe my rep voted that way!"

No one wants to be sitting around reading the lamentations about it months
later in American Rifleman. I don't want to re-live the 1980s and 90s all over.

No one has the excuse now of saying they were uninformed now that there's
the internet and THR.

Titan6
December 6, 2008, 09:08 PM
Coronach- Don't know what happened in the past and don't much care. Now that I am back in America I guess I can work it a little more. Problem is every single pol in my home district on the local, state and national level are all strongly pro 2A except BO/JB. Most even have CCLs. I guess I could work on people in other districts but don't really feel it is my place. I talk to my guys but am preaching choir.

I don't care much for your argument either. Sounds like more excuses to do nothing instead of something. I'll respect the rules of the forum but honestly if the president's written public policy is to eliminate guns why are we waiting on specifics? It isn't as though there is a lot of discussion before some crazy EO gets sent out. We need to head these things off before they become a problem.

Thin Black Line
December 7, 2008, 08:57 AM
I'll respect the rules of the forum but honestly if the president's written public policy is to eliminate guns why are we waiting on specifics? It isn't as though there is a lot of discussion before some crazy EO gets sent out. We need to head these things off before they become a problem.


Good point.

When there's rumblings from the new regime about any intention on banning
guns, using prohibitively high ammunition taxes, etc, then gun consumers will
have to get off their duffs and actually start participating in the political
process as CITIZENS once again in this country.

They can't keep relying on the 1% of us to get the job done for them --not
when the left/antis/socialists/whatevertheyrecalled are able to mobilize 5-10%
of their numbers and outnumber us.

How many of those people who just bought AR15s, etc for the first time over
the last month also became NRA members for the first time? I'm afraid to
even ask the question because I think the answer would make me :barf:

If you enjoyed reading about "rice in UN" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!