It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Again, its quite simple. If he filed a lawsuit, there are more than two witnesses. It states quite clearly in the constitution that its powers shall not be superceded. Thus, it is an act against the united states to try and usurp its power.
reply to post by captaintyinknots
You have to have two witnesses and proof the act is against the U.S. and giving comfort to the enemy, not so easy to prove beyond a doubt in the case of Eric Holder just doing what any lawyer would have to do in this case, also think about it, Treason is founded upon violation of English Law, it's too bad the U.S. can't be ruled and have all of those old statutes converted to say under U.S. law right? so really treason is not a valid law that can be really enforced technically , are we or are we not still under English Law, that is the question I would like to pose, and my other question who is the last person convicted of treason in the United States?
I know a lot of the Snowden fans that probably support Holder being charged with treason, yet think Snowden is a a hero.
I have no problems with making it very clear to you in no uncertain terms. What is being discussed in the OP of this thread is treason, it's not debatable but for those that would seek to undermine and destroy this country through actions and forked tongues.
No Constitutional lawyer on Earth is going to convince Americans that the UN "small arms treaty" supersedes the United States Constitution because it doesn't, not under any argument and if you're going to say it does then I call you guilty of the same I would charge Eric Holder and his cohorts with.
If you think they can bring this to the SCOTUS and win, you're insane, if you think they can bring this to the SCOTUS and it does get passed and Americans do nothing about it, you're insane.
If for whatever reason, it was decided that United Nations treaties or resolutions were going to be honored instead of or above the United States Constitution then that would mean that the "United States" would be under attack by foreign powers giving every American the just right to take up arms in defense of the country. A gross attack on the Constitution, the document that gives our very government it's legitimacy is an attack on the whole of America and would justify any means to the ends to liberate our country from the usurpers.
Read it closely, in fact, read it all, front to back because you have a poor understanding of not only the Constitution but what it actually means to be an American.
You can't sidestep our founding documents or the framework our country was built upon to satisfy your perceived ideals of what our country should be based on lofty ideology mostly forced fed to you by media. You don't get to decide what is right or what is wrong, we live in a republic, a republic governed by law and at the top the power structure lies the Constitution, your misplaced morality and need to fit in doesn't and will not ever supercede that.
reply to post by buster2010
wrong'it sets the precident that international treaaties can and do trump american laws. that is against the law. as no treaty can be entered that is conflict with the law, otherwise the treaty, signed or not, is null and void by default.
If this is true,
It is time to clean your guns, boys and girls.