donhamrick
member
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 8
Wayne LaPierre Speaks with 95% of the Truth on U.N. GUN BAN!
Visit my blog at the American Common Defence Review!
NRA Stop the U.N. Gun Ban Web Site
Watch Wayne LaPierre's introduction video at the web site above!
Then read the following and you will realize that Wayne LaPierre isn't telling you the whole truth! He outright lies about the status of the U.N. gun control agenda and any "Programme of Action" the U.N. creates as having authority over U.S. citizens. TRUTH IS: The provisions of any U.N. treaty or compact, whether in part or in whole, that conflicts with our U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights has no legal effect or authority over the citizens of the United States. Congress can pass legislation or initiated the constitutional amendment process to counter-act any U.N. traty or compact. This is part of the check and balance system with the Executive Branch and the Senate committee responsible for treaties act contrarily to our U.S. Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
:banghead:
I have been trying to get the NRA to help me with my Second Amendment case for the last 4 years. They just won't listen to reason.
I am the Unrepresented Plaintiff in HAMRICK v. PRESIDENT BUSH, et al, U.S. District Court/DC, No. 03-2160, RICO Act case for the Second Amendment. Dismissed with prejudice; Appealed, DC Circuit, No. 04-5316, Dismissal of RICO claims affirmed, Remanded on Second Amendment grounds. Pending on Motion for Rehearing & Rehearing En Banc disputing RICO Claims dismissal. Case is for National Open Carry Handgun. NRA refuses to help because their agenda is National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry.
Read the following and judge for yourself. If you don't like what Wayne LaPierre did not tell you then throw your support to my Second Amendment case presently in the federal courts of Washington, DC
:The Second Amendment & International Treaties
CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM
VOLUME 87: TREATIES
II. Construction and OperationVOLUME 87: TREATIES
87 C.J.S. § 6. Generally
Generally, questions as to the construction, and operation of treaties viewed as contracts between independent nations are questions for the political departments of the contracting powers and not for the courts. Accordingly, respect is ordinarily due the reasonable views of the Executive Branch concerning the meaning of an international treaty. Nevertheless, since treaties in their effect on private rights are in the nature of legislative acts, and are binding on the courts, it is often necessary where such rights are involved for the courts to construe treaties. In such cases, the courts have the power, and the duty, to construe the treaty, and they have the power to determine whether a treaty is applicable to the case under consideration, and the duty to apply it if found applicable. Thus, a treaty, no less than a statute, may confer judicial power.
III. Duration, Modification, Suspension, and Termination
87 C.J.S. § 10. Generally — Effect of abrogation.
In the absence of a showing that a treaty provision violates the Federal Constitution, the courts may not abrogate or annul a treaty provision. However, where one party to a treaty abrogates it, the other party is relieved from all obligation under it.
87 C.J.S. § 11. Modification or amendment
In the absence of a showing that a treaty provision violates the Federal Constitution, courts may not alter, amend or add to any treaty by inserting any clause since to do so would constitute an usurpation of power and would not be an exercise of judicial function.
87 C.J.S. § 12. Manner of termination — Termination by constitutional amendment or by Congress
In the United States[,] Congress may abrogate by a formal act or resolution directly abrogating the treaty, or by legislation which by necessary implication results in abrogation. The intent of Congress, however, must be clear. Moreover, a treaty may be abrogated by the adoption of an amendment to the Federal Constitution and the enactment of a federal statute giving operative effect to such amendment which is in conflict with such treaty provisions.
87 C.J.S. § 12. Manner of termination — Effect of War.
Treaties may be of such a nature as to their object and import that war will put an end to them, war does not, always or necessarily dissolve or terminate treaties between the contending powers. The question whether the stipulations of a treaty are annulled by war depends on their intrinsic character, and provisions compatible with a state of hostilities, unless expressly terminated, survive, and those which are incompatible fall.
IV. Relation To, and Conflict With, Other Laws
87 C.J.S. § 13. Generally
Without express authority from Congress, or authority otherwise clearly indicated, the courts are bound to recognize treaties as lawfully made. However, the courts have the authority to declare the invalidity of a treaty in a proper case where the rights of citizens are involved.
87 C.J.S. § 14. Acts of Congress
Treaties and acts of Congress, are placed on the sam footing and are of like obligation, so that neither having any inherent superiority over the other, either may supersede the other. Even so, neither treaties nor laws passed pursuant to them are free from the restraints of the United States Constitution, such as the Bill of Rights.
87 C.J.S. § 15. State Constitutions and Statutes
The provision of the Federal Constitution that this Constitution and the laws and treaties of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, and binding on the judges in every state, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding, makes treaties superior to both the constitutions and laws of the several states, including the common law of a state, insofar as it is in conflict with the provisions of a treaty. Valid treaties areas binding within the territorial limits of the states as throughout the dominion of the United States. States must adhere to United States treaties and give them the same force and effect as any other federal law, since they are considered to be of equal dignity with acts of Congress, but not superior to the Federal Constitution. A treaty must be regarded as a part of the law of a state, as much as are the state’s own local laws and constitution, and is effective and binding on the state legislature.
Last edited:
