Constitution Means Nothing To This Administration

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by PoliticalChic, Dec 16, 2009.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,829
    Thanks Received:
    15,670
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,991
    John Bolton:
    " A major problem for the United States at the United Nations is what is known as ‘norming.” “Norming” is the idea that the U.S. should base its decisions on some kind of international consensus, rather than making its decisions as a constitutional democracy. It is a way in which the Europeans and their left-wing friends here and elsewhere try and constrain U.S. sovereignty. The fact is that we’re sitting with a majority of countries that have no traditions or understanding of liberty. The argument of the advocates of “norming” is “one nation, one vote.” That sounds very democratic: Who could object to that? But its result would be very anti-democratic. As an illustration of this, a friend of mine once went to a conference on international law and heard a professor from a major European university say, “The problem with the United States is its devotion to its Constitution over international norms.” Consider this:

    . An issue on which “norming” is brought to bear is gun control. The discussion turned out to have nothing to do with small arms and light weapons in African or Asian civil wars. Instead it was about gun control in the U.S., with advocates of “international norms” pressing for the prohibition of private ownership of firearms of any sort. The U.S. delegation made it clear that while we were concerned about the illicit flow of weapons into conflict areas, we were not going to sign on to any international agreement that prohibited private ownership of guns. I explained that we had a Constitution that precluded any such restrictions. This was treated as an entirely specious notion."
    https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=04


    "In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”

    Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.

    So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new scheme under wraps.

    But looking at previous versions of the UN “Small Arms Treaty,” you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.

    If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:

    *** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

    *** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

    *** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;

    *** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION."
    Townhall.com


    Congress.org - : Letter to Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Virginia): OBAMA AND UN want to strip FREEDOMS and DESTROY GUN RIGHTS. NO NO NO.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    From Bolton???

    You must get a more credulous source there.
     
  3. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,829
    Thanks Received:
    15,670
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,991


    Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to John Bolton,World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive for the thread or question under discussion, too often the folks with the alternate view:

    a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side.
    b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’
    c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.
    d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.

    What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst. Rather than offering alternative or surrogate ideas, the above are faulty because:

    a. To refuse to address the issue may mean that one has no faith in the argument of his side, or that the poster is not intellectually equipped to counter same. Nor does a citations political orientation ostensibly prove falsity.
    b. The emoticon response, akin to ‘talk to the hand,’ is both rude and shows an inability to be articulate, a necessary skill for the board to retain interest.
    c. Indicates that one is too lazy to state, or, possibly, re-state a position. But, then, one should say that, or find a succinct way to explain their position.
    d. Possibly the most common, the ad hominem, combines both the lack of ability to argue, and contempt for the opponent. This exposes the weakness both in one’s perspective, and one’s upbringing.

    My thesis is that we should all be able to express our differences coherently in a public forum, and using the above methods is the hallmark of a loser.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2009
  4. bodecea
    Offline

    bodecea Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    89,117
    Thanks Received:
    10,375
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    #HasNoClothes
    Ratings:
    +23,666
    Bolton, criticising others over not following the Constitution.



    This is from The Onion, isn't it?
     
  5. RodISHI
    Offline

    RodISHI Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Messages:
    10,392
    Thanks Received:
    1,858
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,047
    PC, the people in authority positions really could care less about the law or the constitution. This did not happen overnight and if the people do not wake up real soon it will be much worse.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    Yeah, but BOLTON?
     
  7. Father Time
    Offline

    Father Time I'll be Still Alive

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,130
    Thanks Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +438
    How's the weather on your high horse? You're smart enough to know those sources are right wing loons and that people dismiss the ravings of left wing loons as well.
     
  8. SFC Ollie
    Offline

    SFC Ollie Still Marching

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    28,742
    Thanks Received:
    4,418
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Extreme East Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,458
    Regardless of the source, this has some very dangerous ramifications to the 2nd amendment. Many have said that Obama was anti gun and many have claimed it was BS. If he signs onto a UN small arms treaty that affects the 2nd amendment in any way, shape, or form then we know his true colors. This bears some very close watching.
     
  9. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    137,268
    Thanks Received:
    12,339
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +32,538
    politicalchic, please post your sources, because your material is merely boiler plate defense material from some think tank or center. I suspect you are being paid to post it, which is fine, but be transparent please.

    Also, John Bolton is known as a neo-con apologist.

    The great majority of Americans are done with that nonsense.

    Kill the thread and let's move on.
     
  10. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,829
    Thanks Received:
    15,670
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,991
    Instead of aspersion, so easy to cast, requiring no knowledge, how about contesting the post?

    Care to take the challenge?
     

Share This Page