tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27654025.post6105470871884610728..comments2024-03-07T03:25:23.835-08:00Comments on Political Pistachio: Disarming Innocent People Does Not Protect Innocent PeopleDouglas V. Gibbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09388639848567082980noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27654025.post-43872876004692597762023-03-27T15:51:16.850-07:002023-03-27T15:51:16.850-07:00Somewhere you wrote or said that if you take away ...Somewhere you wrote or said that if you take away the liberal cities with anti-gun policies then this country becomes one of the SAFEST countries in the world, yes? Can you cite your article stating this? I couldn't find but remember you mentioning something like this once.John https://www.blogger.com/profile/03324170109882196684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27654025.post-3759930229478876852012-07-22T17:58:08.981-07:002012-07-22T17:58:08.981-07:00I don't normally approve Yellow Flag's com...I don't normally approve Yellow Flag's comments because of the language used, and the ridiculous things he/she says. However, this one is interesting. Aside from calling for censoring my blog because I dare to have an opinion different from his, he also has decided that a single court ruling overturns what the Constitution says. Now, I have to take the good with the bad, and I agree it would be nice if only "constitutional" treaties were valid. But that is not what Article VI says. It says that the Constitution, laws of the United States, "and" treaties are the supreme law of the land. It does not designate, as it does with laws made by the federal government, that the treaties must be pursuant of the Constitution. The founders weren't worried about treaties going outside the Constitution because the States are the final arbiters of the Constitution, and at the time the States had a voice in the federal government through the U.S. Senate, which is also the house of Congress that was needed to ratify said treaties. The 17th Amendment changed that. So, the danger we are in with treaties that threaten to supersede the Constitution is primarily a threat because out system of government, the very dynamics of our government, are outside the Constitution in the first place.Douglas V. Gibbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09388639848567082980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27654025.post-16896961333653061782012-07-22T12:45:32.099-07:002012-07-22T12:45:32.099-07:00First of all Snopes says you are a fucking idiot l...First of all Snopes says you are a fucking idiot liar. http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp<br /><br />Second, you said that ratified treaties become the law of the land, but not according to the courts:<br /><br />Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty," although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement, not a "treaty" in the U.S. legal sense, and the agreement itself has never been ruled unconstitutional.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert<br /><br />piece of shit moron. They ought to silence your fucking piece of shit liars blog.Yellow Flagnoreply@blogger.com