This sure doesnt sound good.

[Old Bookaroo]

golden ray:

Congress passed a law and the Department of Justice is seeking to enforce it.

All the "if's" and "would's" in the world don't change the facts.

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[pippinwhitepaws]

View attachment 891159

 

[Dave44]

I find it increditble (spelling) that a law suit such as this
one could even be filed !
These people should be removed from office at once. And
not in a nice way either.
Read about this here, on Treasure Net. BUT nowhere in the
local media.(of course) stray dogs & high school sports are
more 'news worthy' in their minds.

golden ray:

Congress passed a law and the Department of Justice is seeking to enforce it.

All the "if's" and "would's" in the world don't change the facts.

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

Are you now saying that Congress passed this treaty into law and Holder is trying to enforce it? I hadn't read that!

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Dave44:

I guess it's safe to say now you have.

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

 

[Dave44]

Dave44:

I guess it's safe to say now you have.

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

I guess it would.. Do you have a source? Or were you on the wrong thread?

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Dave44:

Why do you ask? So you pick another fight?

I don't think you are really interested in an open exchange of information or a respectful airing of views.

I already posted two sources - one too many?

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

golden ray:

Congress passed a law and the Department of Justice is seeking to enforce it.

All the "if's" and "would's" in the world don't change the facts.

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

OB, the ruling in gov favor woould be detrimental to our rights.

Sent from my new Galaxy Note3
now Free

 

[Dave44]

Treasure Hunter:

Article. VI.
...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.

That's pretty clear. Nothing in my post was to the contrary.

The piece cited is wildly speculative, full of "if's" and "could's" to the point of meaninglessness, and in my opinion gross fear-mongering.

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

Treasure Hunter:

I don't agree with that analysis.

Issue: (1) Whether the Constitution’s structural limits on federal authority impose any constraints on the scope of Congress’ authority to enact legislation to implement a valid treaty, at least in circumstances where the federal statute, as applied, goes far beyond the scope of the treaty, intrudes on traditional state prerogatives, and is concededly unnecessary to satisfy the government’s treaty obligations; and (2) whether the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, 18 U.S.C. § 229, can be interpreted not to reach ordinary poisoning cases, which have been adequately handled by state and local authorities since the Framing, in order to avoid the difficult constitutional questions involving the scope of and continuing vitality of this Court’s decision in Missouri v. Holland.
Bond v. United States : SCOTUSblog

BOND v. UNITED STATES

Obviously there are principles at issue here. Overriding the US Constitution with an international (what other kind is there?) treaty doesn't appear to be one of them.

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

golden ray:

Congress passed a law and the Department of Justice is seeking to enforce it.

All the "if's" and "would's" in the world don't change the facts.

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

Dave44:

Why do you ask? So you pick another fight?

I don't think you are really interested in an open exchange of information or a respectful airing of views.

I already posted two sources - one too many?

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

These are your sources? You are saying that these 2 "sources" allow the AG to implement gun control because Congress said that he could?
And you want to fight? I don't think you would do well there, friend. I don't push around that well.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Dave44:

If you push as well as you think there shouldn't be a problem.

Of course I didn't say that. What you posted doesn't make sense - and certainly isn't based on anything I wrote. I think you make up your mind what I wrote before you read it.

Those two links explain the case. The gun control aspect of this case is highly speculative - read the source the initial post is based on. Full of "if's" and "could's" to the point it doesn't, in my opinion, relate to this case.

Congress passed a law that exceeds what the treaty stated. The cause of action appears to me to be can Congress do that? The Department of Justice is trying to enforce the law passed by Congress.


Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

 

[Dave44]

Dave44:

If you push as well as you think there shouldn't be a problem.

Of course I didn't say that. What you posted doesn't make sense - and certainly isn't based on anything I wrote. I think you make up your mind what I wrote before you read it.

Those two links explain the case. The gun control aspect of this case is highly speculative - read the source the initial post is based on. Full of "if's" and "could's" to the point it doesn't, in my opinion, relate to this case.

Congress passed a law that exceeds what the treaty stated. The cause of action appears to me to be can Congress do that? The Department of Justice is trying to enforce the law passed by Congress.


Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

OOh, another insult,, Gotcha. An insane fella. Well I will try not to alarm you too often, but you have quite a bit of speculation in your reply. Doesn't make your "opinion" a correct "opinion", despite how much you wish it to be.