Bond Allows Federal Government to Use Treaties to Trump States Rights

Nov 26, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Free Republic

Young Voices is a new project which exists to achieve greater media representation for promising college students and young professionals.

Comments
1 - 6 of 6 Comments Last updated Nov 27, 2013

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Nov 26, 2013
 
"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."

A 'treaty' cannot be made which violates the "supreme law of the land". For ALL 'laws' and 'treaties' MUST be made in conformance to the SUPREME LAW.

"...There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid...."--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78, Saturday, June 14, 1788.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Nov 26, 2013
 
Satan Almighty wrote:
"Why he asked in a time of profound peace should we keep up an oppression--a practice known to operate as an oppression? After fifty years experience, not one solitary instance of good could be shown to have been produced by it. He had nothing to say against making it obligatory for men to be organized and enrolled--to be armed for their own defence. It was perfectly right that all free citizens should be armed for that purpose. Who doubted it?"

- Benjamin Martin, Oct. 25, 1837, delegate from Philadelphia county.[THE CONVENTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION COMMENCED AT HARRISBURG MAY 2 1837, VOL IV.]
Enough already

Bronx, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Nov 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The government abuses it's authority and imposes regulation where it has no authority. It will never regulate itself and there is no accountability unless the people demand it. We must demand accountability with the vote. I would say follow rule of law but the current regime just changes the rules to suit their agenda or just ignores the law.

Since: Jan 09

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Nov 27, 2013
 
I had always thought that a treaty can override any constitutional restrictions which was why the founders set the hurdle pretty high to ratify a treaty (2/3 vote required though 3/4 would have been better). Then someone pointed out to me "Reid v. Covert" from 1957 in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate.

So I am wondering now where the "Bond v. United States" case comes into play considering the already decided "Reid v. Covert" case. It looks like the court wants another taste of the apple which is disturbing.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Nov 27, 2013
 
Enough already wrote:
The government abuses it's authority and imposes regulation where it has no authority. It will never regulate itself and there is no accountability unless the people demand it. We must demand accountability with the vote. I would say follow rule of law but the current regime just changes the rules to suit their agenda or just ignores the law.
PRECISELY. Good post.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Nov 27, 2013
 
Zzznorch wrote:
I had always thought that a treaty can override any constitutional restrictions which was why the founders set the hurdle pretty high to ratify a treaty (2/3 vote required though 3/4 would have been better). Then someone pointed out to me "Reid v. Covert" from 1957 in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate.
So I am wondering now where the "Bond v. United States" case comes into play considering the already decided "Reid v. Covert" case. It looks like the court wants another taste of the apple which is disturbing.
The U.S. Constitution is "the supreme law of the land". And no 'law' or 'treaty' can supersede it.

"...no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution....

"This court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the constitution over a treaty.

"This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument."--US Supreme Court, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Education Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CCNA Voice 200-001 dumps 5 hr passexam 1
Microsoft 70-346 exam practice test 5 hr passexam 1
IBM C2010-508 exam questions,latest dumps 5 hr passexam 1
Adobe 9A0-281 exam practice test 5 hr passexam 1
IBM C2010-510 exam real questions 5 hr passexam 1
NC judge: Private school vouchers unconstitutional 16 hr Phil 4
naked school. swimming (Apr '13) 17 hr MaltaMon 137

Search the Education Forum:
•••