Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Imagine the possible legal implications!
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3178968" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>As Dennis points out, there are those who say the same of several provisions in the Constitution that predate those treaties. As Dennis also points out, there's a procedure for changing those provisions. The article notes that court precedents--affirmed as recently as two years ago--that there's also a procedure for disestablishing reservations and otherwise abrogating the treaty.</p><p></p><p>That procedure has not been followed. The state and feds are both arguing that "well, we've stomped on it so long and so hard that it just doesn't apply anymore." Do you <em>really</em> want that precedent to be established? Do you want that to be on the books when the Brady Bunch brings a challenge against the Second Amendment, and points out the Army-Navy Laws, NFA '34, GCA '68, the Brady Bill, the AWB, capacity restrictions, ownership qualifications, and a whole host of other infringements as a basis for saying "yeah, that dated old thing was from a different time, and besides, we've stomped on it so much that it doesn't count anyway, process be damned?" Because that's the argument here.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, and there's a clearly-defined process for changing both. It hasn't been followed here.</p><p></p><p>So...our laws and our solemn promise are merely pretexts, "agreements" that aren't worth the paper they're written on? What do you think that will do for our credibility in negotiating future treaties if we make it our policy that they're utterly meaningless, and we'll do as we damned well please, whenever it pleases us?</p><p></p><p>Think about the power you propose, and imagine it in the hands of someone who would use it against you.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3178968, member: 13624"] As Dennis points out, there are those who say the same of several provisions in the Constitution that predate those treaties. As Dennis also points out, there's a procedure for changing those provisions. The article notes that court precedents--affirmed as recently as two years ago--that there's also a procedure for disestablishing reservations and otherwise abrogating the treaty. That procedure has not been followed. The state and feds are both arguing that "well, we've stomped on it so long and so hard that it just doesn't apply anymore." Do you [I]really[/I] want that precedent to be established? Do you want that to be on the books when the Brady Bunch brings a challenge against the Second Amendment, and points out the Army-Navy Laws, NFA '34, GCA '68, the Brady Bill, the AWB, capacity restrictions, ownership qualifications, and a whole host of other infringements as a basis for saying "yeah, that dated old thing was from a different time, and besides, we've stomped on it so much that it doesn't count anyway, process be damned?" Because that's the argument here. Yes, and there's a clearly-defined process for changing both. It hasn't been followed here. So...our laws and our solemn promise are merely pretexts, "agreements" that aren't worth the paper they're written on? What do you think that will do for our credibility in negotiating future treaties if we make it our policy that they're utterly meaningless, and we'll do as we damned well please, whenever it pleases us? Think about the power you propose, and imagine it in the hands of someone who would use it against you. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Imagine the possible legal implications!
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom