Outrage: Obama Admin Says Texans Can't Arrest UN Observers Even If They Violate Law

[Dick Tuck]

no, it doesn't Dickless. look it up.

You're an idiot. You ought to look it up. Can a state law supercede NAFTA? Can they impose tariffs on Canadian goods? Only a complete lying hack, like yourself would believe that a State can pass a law that supersedes a treaty.

show mew where I said anything about passing laws? I said state laws cannot be superseded by treaties. That means EXISTING laws, dumb ass.

Look back you'll see this post...

You're full of shit, pansy ass. A treaty can supersede a state law, and the state is obligated to obey it.

Doesn't work that way, dumb ass. treaties do not trump state or federal law. period. As long as they do not violate existing state or federal law, if ratified by the Senate, treaties have the same force as a state or federal law.

You claim to know the Constitution, but you know jack shit about it.

I know enough about it to know you're a fucking lying hack in your stupid, paranoid claims.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Texas will do what Texas needs to do in upholding the law. Obama doesn't have a leg to stand on in telling a State they cannot arrest someone who breaks the law.

If the observers are extended diplomatic immunity, then yes, Texas can't do jack about them without landing in a fairly huge amount of trouble.

Ask folks in New York City about diplomatic immunity some time.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Obama does not have the power to stop state law.

Obama has every right and duty to uphold the constitution. A valid international treaty supersedes state law.

Bullshit commie bastard.

You can debate if it's a negotiated treaty that gives the observers the right to be here, but you don't get to debate the larger point. Namely, a treaty ratified by Congress does indeed supersede Federal and State law. Treaties once ratified are considered on par with the US Constitution.

Supremacy Clause:

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Texas will be happy if they leave the Union....the Union will be happy if Texas leaves. This is a win/win situation. It' cannot happen soon enough.

My overall opinion is this: When the South wanted to leave, we should have let them leave.

Inside a decade there's a chance we'll see Secession talks taken seriously in the South and the North East again.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Chicago has a long history of dirty elections. Would you support UN observers there?

Yes.

 

[Conservative]

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Concerns about treaties

There has been some debate as to whether or not some of the basic principles of the United States Constitution, such as the country's system of government or Bill of Rights, could be affected by an ambitious treaty. In the 1950s, a Constitutional Amendment known as the Bricker Amendment was proposed in response to such fears. This proposed amendment would have mandated that all American treaties shall not conflict with the manifest powers granted to the Federal Government. Subsequent Federal court cases such as Seery v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 601 (Court of Claims, 1955), Diggs v. Schultz, 470 F.2d 461 (1972), and Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) have, over the course of time, established in legal decisions most of the limitations that had been proposed by the Bricker Amendment.[6][7][8]

Spin that, Dickless Fuck.


EDIT:

Three years later the Supreme Court of the United States explicitly ruled in Reid v. Covert that the Bill of Rights cannot be abrogated by agreements with foreign powers.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

More from Wikipedia you didn't post:

In Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796), the Supreme Court for the first time relied on the Supremacy Clause to strike down a state statute. The state of Virginia had passed a statute during the Revolutionary War allowing the state to confiscate debt payments by Virginia citizens to British creditors. The Supreme Court found that this Virginia statute was inconsistent with the Treaty of Paris with Britain, which protected the rights of British creditors. Relying on the Supremacy Clause, the Supreme Court held that the Treaty superseded the Virginia statute, and that it was the duty of the courts to declare the Virginia statute "null and void."

In 1922, the Court applied the Supremacy Clause to international treaties, holding in the case of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), that the Federal government's ability to make treaties is supreme over any State concerns that such treaties might abrogate states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment.

As for Reid vs. Covert

The Supreme Court in 1957 declared that the United States could not abrogate the rights guaranteed to citizens in the Bill of Rights through international agreements.

Note, not the states, but the citizens. Seery V. United States also ruled that individual citizen rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights can not be abrogated. Again though, that isn't the States Rights being protected, but the citizens.

 

[driveby]

What an ignorant pussy you are. Where was your outrage when GWH Bush signed the treaty to join the OCSE? Where was your black helicopter schtick when GW Bush invited the OSCE to monitor US elections since 2002. You're a lying little idiot. No you stupid motherfucker, it's not about me wanting or not wanting to become a world citizen, it's me understanding our Constitution, and like it or not, respecting it.

Sorry, but those facts don't change when you all of a sudden put on your brown shirt, and ignore what your Bush boys did.

If you show me where Bush said not to arrest them if they violate the law, you might have something. If not, you have nothing but a funny meltdown and yet another massive fail....

It's you paranoid bitches who seem to be having a meltdown, with images of black helicoptors dancing in your point heads. As stated over and over, OSCE has been monitoring US elections since 2002, and none of you tin foil idiots said a word about it until now.

Nothing in 2002 stating it's ok for them to break the law, Dick Tuck fails for the 3000th time, expect another follow up fail shortly....

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Nothing in 2002 stating it's ok for them to break the law, Dick Tuck fails for the 3000th time, expect another follow up fail shortly....

I'd like to see someone address whether the observers have diplomatic immunity or not. Because if they do, Texas can't do anything to stop them.

 

[Liability]

Nothing in 2002 stating it's ok for them to break the law, Dick Tuck fails for the 3000th time, expect another follow up fail shortly....

I'd like to see someone address whether the observers have diplomatic immunity or not. Because if they do, Texas can't do anything to stop them.

I noted as much earlier.

Who ARE these so-called "observers?"

They do not APPEAR to have ANY actual diplomatic standing.

So the fact that they were "invited" here by the Administration means exactly dick in terms of the right of the STATES to enforce their own election laws.

OSCE/ODIHR opens mission to observe general elections in United States

WASHINGTON D.C., 9 October 2012 – The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR) today officially opened an election observation mission for the general elections to be held in the United States on 6 November.

The limited election observation mission's deployment follows an invitation from the authorities of the United States. As a participating State in the OSCE, the United States has committed itself to conducting elections in line with OSCE standards and inviting international election observers. ODIHR has assessed elections in the United States since 2002.

-- OSCE/ODIHR opens mission to observe general elections in United States - Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights

Generally, see: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe | OSCE

ALSO, see: Election observation: a few facts - Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights which notes that:

Election observation: a few facts


Over the past couple of weeks, we have seen numerous misleading media reports regarding the role of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in observing the upcoming general elections in the United States on 6 November.

In addition, we have been the recipient of countless messages from concerned citizens about our presence in the United States.

In response, here are a few facts that we hope will help dispel some of the rumours that have been circulating.

1. The Organization for Security and Co-operation (OSCE) is not an agency of the United Nations.

2. OSCE election observers are bound by a strict code of conduct, requiring them to maintain impartiality in the conduct of their duties, to perform those duties in an unobtrusive manner, and to not interfere in the elections in the United States in any way. They are not election police or referees. They will not play any role in counting votes or resolving election disputes. Their only role is to observe the process and to report on the degree to which that process meets the commitments that the United States has agreed to uphold.

3. OSCE observers have not been invited by one political faction to investigate claims against any other political faction. The OSCE observers have been invited by the United States Government. In fact, the OSCE has already observed a number of US elections, including previous general elections in 2004 and 2008 and mid-term elections in 2002, 2006, and 2010, always at the invitation of the respective administration that was in office at the time of the election.

4. The presence of OSCE observers is not in violation of US law. In fact, the OSCE is very aware that individual states have their own laws regarding the presence of observers at polling stations, and OSCE observers have never violated these laws in any of the five US elections already observed, and they will not do so this time.

5. The United States is one of the founding members of the OSCE, having been a part of the Organization since it was first established in 1975 as an important multilateral forum for dialogue between East and West at the height of the Cold War. Click here to see the Organization's timeline.

6. The OSCE has a longstanding invitation to monitor elections in every one of its participating States. The invitation can be found in the Organization’s Copenhagen Document, which was signed on behalf of the United States in 1990 by then-Secretary of State James Baker, under the Republican administration of George H. W. Bush. Baker, a native of the state of Texas, had previously been chief of staff under President Ronald Reagan.

7. Since agreeing to the principles of election observation, the United States has been a strong supporter of this practice, as both Democratic and Republican administrations have made it a standard practice over the years to invite OSCE observers to monitor both general and mid-term congressional elections.

8. Over the past twenty-plus years, citizens of the United States have taken part in OSCE election observation missions to many other countries, including places like Albania, Bulgaria, Canada, France, Kazakhstan, Russia, and the United Kingdom.

And so, if they DO manage to violate Texas Law, they are going to be subject to arrest, apparently.

 

[Conservative]

More from Wikipedia you didn't post:

In Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796), the Supreme Court for the first time relied on the Supremacy Clause to strike down a state statute. The state of Virginia had passed a statute during the Revolutionary War allowing the state to confiscate debt payments by Virginia citizens to British creditors. The Supreme Court found that this Virginia statute was inconsistent with the Treaty of Paris with Britain, which protected the rights of British creditors. Relying on the Supremacy Clause, the Supreme Court held that the Treaty superseded the Virginia statute, and that it was the duty of the courts to declare the Virginia statute "null and void."

In 1922, the Court applied the Supremacy Clause to international treaties, holding in the case of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), that the Federal government's ability to make treaties is supreme over any State concerns that such treaties might abrogate states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment.

As for Reid vs. Covert

The Supreme Court in 1957 declared that the United States could not abrogate the rights guaranteed to citizens in the Bill of Rights through international agreements.

Note, not the states, but the citizens. Seery V. United States also ruled that individual citizen rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights can not be abrogated. Again though, that isn't the States Rights being protected, but the citizens.

Did not post them because they do not apply to what I was talking about... EXISTING LAW, not NEW LAW. If we enter into a treaty with another country, the President or his designatee signs it... the Senate ratifies it... then of COURSE a state cannot go and enact a law contrary to said treaty AFTER THE FACT.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Texas will be happy if they leave the Union....the Union will be happy if Texas leaves. This is a win/win situation. It' cannot happen soon enough.

My overall opinion is this: When the South wanted to leave, we should have let them leave.

Inside a decade there's a chance we'll see Secession talks taken seriously in the South and the North East again.

We did let them leave. It wasn't until the scumbags decided to attack what was still Federal property that caused a war. After that horrific war, the South still had the choice of being an occupied, independent territory. As it stands, secession is still unchallenged.

 

[WorldWatcher]

More from Wikipedia you didn't post:

In Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796), the Supreme Court for the first time relied on the Supremacy Clause to strike down a state statute. The state of Virginia had passed a statute during the Revolutionary War allowing the state to confiscate debt payments by Virginia citizens to British creditors. The Supreme Court found that this Virginia statute was inconsistent with the Treaty of Paris with Britain, which protected the rights of British creditors. Relying on the Supremacy Clause, the Supreme Court held that the Treaty superseded the Virginia statute, and that it was the duty of the courts to declare the Virginia statute "null and void."

As for Reid vs. Covert

The Supreme Court in 1957 declared that the United States could not abrogate the rights guaranteed to citizens in the Bill of Rights through international agreements.

Note, not the states, but the citizens. Seery V. United States also ruled that individual citizen rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights can not be abrogated. Again though, that isn't the States Rights being protected, but the citizens.

Did not post them because they do not apply to what I was talking about... EXISTING LAW, not NEW LAW. If we enter into a treaty with another country, the President or his designatee signs it... the Senate ratifies it... then of COURSE a state cannot go and enact a law contrary to said treaty AFTER THE FACT.

In Ware v. Hylton existing law was overturned by the treaty. Virginia passed the law during the war and Treaty of Paris was signed to end the war. Therefore the law was passed before the treaty.


>>>>

 

[Dick Tuck]

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Concerns about treaties

There has been some debate as to whether or not some of the basic principles of the United States Constitution, such as the country's system of government or Bill of Rights, could be affected by an ambitious treaty. In the 1950s, a Constitutional Amendment known as the Bricker Amendment was proposed in response to such fears. This proposed amendment would have mandated that all American treaties shall not conflict with the manifest powers granted to the Federal Government. Subsequent Federal court cases such as Seery v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 601 (Court of Claims, 1955), Diggs v. Schultz, 470 F.2d 461 (1972), and Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) have, over the course of time, established in legal decisions most of the limitations that had been proposed by the Bricker Amendment.[6][7][8]

Spin that, Dickless Fuck.


EDIT:

Three years later the Supreme Court of the United States explicitly ruled in Reid v. Covert that the Bill of Rights cannot be abrogated by agreements with foreign powers.

You dimwit. What does the US treaty which allows observing elections have to do with the Bill of Rights. You're a simpleton.

 

[Conservative]

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Concerns about treaties

There has been some debate as to whether or not some of the basic principles of the United States Constitution, such as the country's system of government or Bill of Rights, could be affected by an ambitious treaty. In the 1950s, a Constitutional Amendment known as the Bricker Amendment was proposed in response to such fears. This proposed amendment would have mandated that all American treaties shall not conflict with the manifest powers granted to the Federal Government. Subsequent Federal court cases such as Seery v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 601 (Court of Claims, 1955), Diggs v. Schultz, 470 F.2d 461 (1972), and Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) have, over the course of time, established in legal decisions most of the limitations that had been proposed by the Bricker Amendment.[6][7][8]

Spin that, Dickless Fuck.


EDIT:

Three years later the Supreme Court of the United States explicitly ruled in Reid v. Covert that the Bill of Rights cannot be abrogated by agreements with foreign powers.

You dimwit. What does the US treaty which allows observing elections have to do with the Bill of Rights. You're a simpleton.

if you bothered to actually READ the post, you'd know. Dickless Fuck.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

And so, if they DO manage to violate Texas Law, they are going to be subject to arrest, apparently.

With no treaty in place and no diplomatic immunity, yes. They'd be subject to the State's existing laws.

It seems there's two points that need to be addressed then. Is there a treaty in place and/or is diplomatic immunity involved?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

In Ware v. Hylton existing law was overturned by the treaty. Virginia passed the law during the war and Treaty of Paris was signed to end the war. Therefore the law was passed before the treaty.


>>>>

Yep.

Missouri v. Holland is especially interesting, as in that case the Federal Government tried to pass a law deemed unconstitutional, then went and negotiated a treaty specifically to get the desired result. They then passed a law to enforce the new treaty. The new law was now Constitutional.

I don't normally delve this far into treaties and Supremacy Clause, so this has been an enlightening thread.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

We did let them leave. It wasn't until the scumbags decided to attack what was still Federal property that caused a war. After that horrific war, the South still had the choice of being an occupied, independent territory. As it stands, secession is still unchallenged.

The next secessionist movement will be messier though, because the question of Federal debt will come up. No one is getting out without paying their share on the way out. If they did, no international bank or money lending institution would take the new country seriously, tanking their new currency out the door.

 

[paulitician]

America will be the last battleground in the NWO Globalist War for World dominance. Most others have already fallen. I guess we'll see if Americans have the stomach to fight and defeat them. Time will tell.

 

[paulitician]

Everyone should see the 'Obama Deception' film. Obama is just a puppet controlled by the NWO Global Elites.