Text 20294, 59 rader
Skriven 2006-05-20 07:30:08 av Bob Ackley (1:2905/3)
  Kommentar till text 20212 av VERN HUMPHREY (1:123/140)
Ärende: War Monkey
==================
Replying to a message of VERN HUMPHREY to BOB ACKLEY:

 GB>>> What war crimes?

 BA>> The Constitution of the United States, Article 6, states that the
 BA>> Constitution and the treaties signed and ratified in accordance with
 BA>> it, shall be the supreme law of the land.  The Charter of the United
 BA>> Nations is a treaty, signed by the president and ratified by the
 BA>> Senate.

 VH> And Article V says how the Constitution may be amended:

 VH>                           Article. V.
 VH>         The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it    
   
 VH> necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on        
 VH> the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several        
 VH> States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which,        
 VH> in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as        
 VH> Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of        
 VH> three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three        
 VH> fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification        
 VH> may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment        
 VH> which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred        
 VH> and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth        
 VH> Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no        
 VH> State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal        
 VH> Suffrage in the Senate.

 VH> It is bizzare to suggest that the Founders, who declared two-thirds of
 VH> BOTH houses AND three-fourths of the states are required to amend the
 VH> Constitution actually meant a mere majority of the Senate only, could
 VH> amend it by approving a treaty.

It's not bizarre at all, that's the way they wrote it.  The words are not
complex
and the grammar is pretty simple and easy to read and understand.  Perhaps you
could convince 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states to change that?

And while you're on the subject of amending that document, perhaps you could
convince the congress, the executive and the courts that none of them has a
legitimate
power to amend, alter, or abolish the Constitution?  The horribly misnamed and
blatantly
anti-Constitutional USA PATRIOT Act comes immediately to mind, along with some
provisions of the FISA legislation and the current brouhaha over NSA's domestic
spying (which data mining - the claim they aren't doing it is patent bullshit -
one can easily defeat by buying a disposable cell phone, disposing of it as
soon as the minutes are up, and buying another one - and note that there's no
record of who owns any of those).  Note that the 1947 law that established NSA
specifically forbids it from listening to communications within the US.  Also
retroactive taxes and pay increases (which are by definition ex-post-facto
laws, and the Constitution - at least my copy of it - doesn't differentiate
between civil and criminal law in that regard).  And the so-called death tax,
which is a direct tax and is therefore unConstitutional, because the government
has the power to directly tax only incomes, and estates are not incomes.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
 * Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:2905/3)