| reply to Flibbetigibb
Re: Like always said by Flibbetigibb :said by Rekrul:said by KrK:Some of these proposals are truly very detrimental.... and the sad thing is the US doesn't even act like it's too concerned about this idea, it appears. Why should it be? It's not like the US would obey any UN created law that they don't agree with. And rightly so. The Constitution doesn't give any authority to super-national organizations. The Bill of Rights isn't subject to a vote of foreign dictatorships. Uhh, there's a whole section about treaties, and how the senate has to ratify them with a 2/3 vote, isn't that then, 'the law'? |
|
| said by viperlmw:Uhh, there's a whole section about treaties, and how the senate has to ratify them with a 2/3 vote, isn't that then, 'the law'?
Indeed. And I'd like to see any UN-created "law" (there's actually no such thing, but you brought it up) that meets that criteria. |
|
 ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
 ·magicjack.com
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| The UN is a "global power base" established by the 1% behind closed doors as a sort of "test" NWO. Right now it's not terribly efficient because it works for the corporate interest of the EU, US & Oil countries right now.
As for a "Bill of rights" I'm pretty sure that document is only a "flower" on the dung pile right now alongside the Constitution, well, the framers version anyway, until our global society breaksdown and reforms.
--
----
As long as superstition prevails, we will fall short of eradicating war, poverty, and hunger. -J. Fresco
khanacademy.org
en.lernu.net
www.k12.com
churchofreality.org
kopimistsamfundet.se
zeitnews.org
thezeitgeistmovement.com
thevenusproject.com
--- |
|
Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
| reply to viperlmw
said by viperlmw:Uhh, there's a whole section about treaties, and how the senate has to ratify them with a 2/3 vote, isn't that then, 'the law'?
Look up Reid v. Covert. Treaties can not confer power to the Government free from the restraints of the Constitution. |
|
|
|
ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN Reviews:
·magicjack.com
·AT&T U-Verse
| No, but it does nothing to prevent barry from issuing an executive order in the name of "national security". Since he and his appointed cabinet support a "global order" he said himself that he was willing to effectiovely "create an appropriate legal framework from scratch", essentially to hell with current laws. |
|
ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN Reviews:
·magicjack.com
·AT&T U-Verse
1 edit | reply to Crookshanks
I'll see your Reid vs. Covert and raise you 1 x Continuity of Operations Presidential directive 51 (NSPD-51) & Raise you by 1x HSPD-20, FCD-1 and FEMA CGC-1.
Also Executive Order 12803 has some importance when looking at the bigger picture here. |
|
