Tracking the next pandemic: Avian Flu Talk |
The US Constitution Now has a Warning Label |
Post Reply |
Author | ||||
sjf53
Valued Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: June 08 2010 at 3:05pm |
|||
WHAT??? Just heard about this ..............
The US Constitution Now Has A Warning Label
June 05, 2010Disclaimer on Constitution Wilder publicationsVia Michael: A&D Publishing of Radford, VA (aka Wilder Publishing) offers a copy of the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation which includes the following DISCLAIMER: (click to enlarge)
This book is a product of it's time and does not represent the same values as if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race,gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work. |
||||
mrmouse
V.I.P. Member Joined: April 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 2225 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Now that's Progressivism in action! I guess there needs to be a warning label in todays Amerika because there's no mention of Social Justice for all mentioned by those evil framers of the US Constitution. After all, we're living in a world community now, and there's no need for such a sovereign document that grants individual freedoms. The United States Constitution is all that stands between us, and global governance.
|
||||
mrmouse
V.I.P. Member Joined: April 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 2225 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
What it means to be an American!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNUc8nuo7HI&feature=player_embedded#! |
||||
sjf53
Valued Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
|
||||
Turboguy
Admin Group Joined: October 27 2007 Status: Offline Points: 6079 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
I thought the Constitution was a living document open to any interpretation anyone wants to have. Heck, we don't even need one anymore!
Oh wait, that's just the opinion of the latest disaster to befall the Constitution under the current administration. When she hits the SCOTUS I can only imagine the moronic edicts she'll crap out. |
||||
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views. - William F. Buckley
|
||||
sjf53
Valued Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
This is all very sad, isn't it. Historic Times
|
||||
Turboguy
Admin Group Joined: October 27 2007 Status: Offline Points: 6079 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
I'm not even surprised by the crap coming from Obama anymore...
|
||||
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views. - William F. Buckley
|
||||
Mary008
V.I.P. Member Joined: June 22 2009 Status: Offline Points: 5769 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
.
Do the American people want to live by our U.S. Constitution or do they want to live by the U.N. Charter?
..............................................
Many areas of the UN Charter are...
A case of idealism versus reality.
States wish it were a more perfect charter.
Due to the various cultures of our world, it would be amazingly difficult
to get a consensus on a document that could govern with legal force the affairs of all the member governments.
Not to worry...
That below was in 1955.... The hopeful years. The U.S. Attorney General then 'took a position.' on the 'objectives' of Articles 55 and 56-
Articles 55 & 56 look like guidelines ... happy talk. On April 7, 1953, the U.S. Attorney General, CFR, also took the position that actions under Art. 55 and 56 of the UN charter is obligatory.
He said in testimony that; "A notable example is Articles 55 and 56
of the UN charter obligating the parties to promote stated social and
economic objectives and pledging themselves to take joint and separate
action for the achievement of these purposes.
All members do not take it seriously... ( North Korea for one )
From- Widely recognized member of the UN. North Korea is not recognized by four UN members:
Japan, France, Estonia and South Korea. Add me to that list.
Current UN member North Korea ........................ ................................ Democratic People's Republic of Korea Date of admission- 17 September 1991
.................................................................... Article 55 ....................... With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based for respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote: (a) higher standards of living, full employment,
and conditions of economic and social progress and development; (b) solutions of international economic, social, health,
and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation and (c) universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms
for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Article 56 ........................ All members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in
cooperation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55. Article 60
..................... Responsibility for the discharge of the functions of the Organization
set forth in this Chapter shall be vested in the General Assembly and, under the authority of the General Assembly in the Economic and Social Council, which shall have for this purpose all the powers set forth in Chapter X. from-
CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS (1945)
CHAPTER IX INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COOPERATION
..............
Mary008
|
||||
Mary008
V.I.P. Member Joined: June 22 2009 Status: Offline Points: 5769 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
.
The UN won't be overtaking anyone's constitution any time soon.
Non-intervention is enshrined in Article 2.7 of the UN Charter.
......................................................................................................... Read in full here- Disarmament Diplomacy Issue No. 80, Autumn 2005 Just War and the Responsibility to Protect: Developments in UN Peacekeeping
and Humanitarian Intervention
Hugh Beach
© 2005 The Acronym Institute.
http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd80/80hb.htm excerpt-
Article 2.7 of the UN Charter says bluntly that nothing contained in it shall
authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters that are essentially within
the domestic jurisdiction of any state.
But it half contradicts itself by saying that this principle shall not prejudice
the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the Charter.
( So if enough countries are together on some Horror... they may try to stop it. )
Chapter VII, as we have seen, relates not only to acts of aggression but also to threats to the peace and breaches of the peace, generally assumed to be international threats. Thus UN Security Council Resolution 688 of 5 April 1991 described Saddam Hussein's repression of the Kurds and Shias as a threat to international peace and security. It was on the strength of this resolution that France, followed by the US, Britain and a number of other countries, took action with ground and air forces to compel the Iraqi regime to desist. But the supposed threat to international security was largely a pretext.
On 3 December 1992 the Security Council, in Resolution 794, broke new ground by deciding to intervene in Somalia citing strictly humanitarian purposes. There was not even any pretence of consent by the government of Somalia because no such government existed. There was negligible spill-over to other countries in the form of refugees. The plight of the Somali people was the sole reason given for invoking Chapter VII of the Charter, authorising the use of "all necessary means" to establish a "secure environment for humanitarian relief". In practice this meant taking sides and acting with far from minimal force. Sadly the mission was unsuccessful. A ferocious and chaotic battle in Mogadishu on 3 October led to the death of eighteen American rangers. Public and congressional outrage, especially at the sight of a dead and mutilated soldier being dragged through the streets, led the US administration to reconsider its entire policy on peacekeeping and peace enforcement. President Clinton announced that US troops would pull out by 31 March 1994 regardless of the situation on the ground. A year later the entire UN force was withdrawn having achieved no useful purpose whatsoever.
In a further example, the Security Council authorised the despatch of a multinational force to Haiti in July 1994, following some thuggish activity in Port-au-Prince. The force was to be led by the United States and supported by a small number of Caribbean troops. It was authorised by UNSC Resolution 940, which cited Chapter VII of the Charter and referred to the use of "all necessary means" in order to "facilitate the departure from Haiti" of the oppressive regime. In the end the threat of a US-led invasion proved enough to secure regime change and no serious resistance was encountered. The task of the UN forces in Bosnia was to secure the delivery of humanitarian goods and services and to protect civilians in declared "safe havens". The deployment of UNPROFOR was carried out, initially at least, with the consent of the "host" states (Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia). But its mandate was subsequently extended to include, for example, deterrence of attacks on safe havens and the use of air power to that end, with the clear invocation of Chapter VII. The NATO air strikes from 30 August to 14 September 1995 was justified (if somewhat tenuously) under UNSC Resolutions 836 and 844 of June 1993. The strikes, which came after three years of the siege of Sarajevo, played a large part in securing Serb participation in peace talks that culminated in the Dayton Accord that brought the war in Bosnia to an end. .....................
Mary008
|
||||
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum |