So, Yeah, About the Whole Republican Projection Thing

Yes.

So when Article VI Section 2 says “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” you think that is valid yes?

So you agree that all treaties that the US has signed and ratified (keep in mind it requires 2/3rds of the Senate to ratify a treaty, same as a constitutional amendment which isn’t a coincidence) are as the Constitution clearly and plainly states the supreme Law of the Land, yes?

Can we skip to the gotcha question you’re clearly setting up?

It’s a pretty straightforward question.

When Article VI Section 2 says “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” you think that is valid yes?

Do you agree that all treaties that the US has signed and ratified (keep in mind it requires 2/3rds of the Senate to ratify a treaty, same as a constitutional amendment which isn’t a coincidence) are as the Constitution clearly and plainly states the supreme Law of the Land, or do you not?

Do you believe in the Constitution of the United States of America and that the government must follow it or not?

Yes or no will suffice.

Yes.

So you agree that according to Article VI Section 2 of the United States Constitution that the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees which was signed by the President of the United States on August 1 1968 and ratified by the Senate of the United States on October 4 1968 (59-0 FYI) is the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, yes?

https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/90th-congress/27/resolution-text

I would have to see said treaty.

Why?

The Constitution is pretty clear no?

Article VI Section 2 pretty clearly states that “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” doesn’t it?

And you think the government should follow the Constitution of the United States yes?

Also, I conveniently included the link to the official ratification.

You can see is passed the Senate 59-0 no?

What more do you need?

The details of the treaty. Who does it apply to, how narrow is it, what has the Supreme Court said about it, is it still applicable, etc.

Click the link.

Treaties signed by the President of United States of America and ratified by the Senate of the United States of America apply to the United States of America as is clearly and plainly stated in Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America.

As to SCOTUS this treaty actually led to a very studied case in US/International Law.

Sale v Haitian Community Centers.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-344.ZD.html
[edit: Oops. That is a dissenting opinion, see post below for correct link]

This was the first case in which SCOTUS used a foreign language version of a treaty to rule on US law. They used the French word ‘refouler’ to clarify the English ‘return’.

So yeah. SCOTUS takes Article VI Section 2 seriously.


Do you?

Do you agree with SCOTUS that according to Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America that the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees which was signed by the President of the United States of America on August 1 1968 and ratified by the Senate of the United States of America on October 4 1968 (59-0 FYI) is the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby?

Oops. I fucked up. The above link is to Blackman’s dissenting opinion.

Here is the link to the majority opinion:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/509/155/

So Billy, do you agree with known progressive woke lefty communist Justice Scalia that it is obvious from the clear and plain language of Article VI Section 2 of the United States Constitution that “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” when he he used the French version of the treaty to determine US law?

(c) Article 33's text-which provides that "[n]o ... State shall expel or return ('refouler~ a refugee ... to ... territories where his life or freedom would be threatened ... ," Article 33.1, and that "[t]he benefit of the present provision may not ... be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is [located]," Article 33.2-affirmatively indicates that it was not intended to have extraterritorial effect. First, if Article 33.1 applied on the high seas, Article 33.2 would create an absurd anomaly: Dangerous aliens in extraterritorial waters would be entitled to 33.1's benefits because they would not be in any "country" under 33.2, while dangerous aliens residing in the country that sought to expel them would not be so entitled. It is more reasonable to assume that 33.2's coverage was limited to those already in the country because it was understood that 33.1 obligated the signatory state only with respect to aliens within its territory. Second, Article 33.l's use of the words "expel or return" as an obvious parallel to the words "deport or return" in § 243(h)(1) suggests that "return" in 33.1 refers to exclusion proceedings, see Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U. S. 185,187, and therefore has a legal meaning narrower than its common meaning. This suggestion is reinforced by the parenthetical reference to the French word "refouler,"

What kind of circumstances?

He gave you the answer in his question. “Via the legal process”. Making them not illegal.

Not showing up for their hearings.

Cool, so 95% of asylum seekers aren't "illegals" then?

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/04/f...ylum-grants-and-immigration-court-attendance/

How many hearings has DWI boy missed? Just wonderin.

Why FF keeps trying to answer questions using right wing sources raises the same question that comes to mind when I watch a Roadrunner cartoon…why does the Coyote keeps trying to catch the Road Runner with Acme products?

They have the first listing in the yellow pages. Let your fingers do the walking!

Also, I'm certain ACME will statiscally prove to be more reliable than right wing sources.

Great minds…

http://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3458375/

Man, those crickets have really been getting a workout for the past month.

Meanwhile, getting back to the Republican projection, courtesy of Joe My God and Wonkette, here's just the past week in child-raping religious leaders:

Local pastor Ronnie Killingsworth indicted on multiple child sex crimes (Wichita Falls, Texas)

Embattled Tennessee bishop resigns after priest complaints, abuse-related lawsuits

Former Bishop Luers teacher charged with child seduction (Catholic school teacher, Fort Wayne, Indiana)

Former Plover youth pastor reaches plea deal in child sexual assault case (That's in Wisconsin.)

Former West Penn Twp. pastor charged with indecent assault of three girls from 2007-12

Northeast Ohio pastor pleads guilty to child sex charges

Former Clackamas pastor sentenced to 160 months for sex abuse (That's Oregon, and it was seven young girls.)
​

Is this the thread where he wouldn’t admit that communist regimes could be repressive and so even though 3/4 most common nationalities of asylum seekers were Cuban, Venezuelan and Nicaraguan (Haiti is other) they were all still illegals even though they were following US asylum laws?

Wait, I'm confused. Are Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua hellholes that prove the evils of socialism, or are refugees from those countries being coached to pretend they're hellholes?

Yes. Obviously.

On a serious and very pedantic note they are asylum seekers not refugees.

Refugees are people temporarily displaced due to armed conflict, natural events or other situations that once resolved will allow them to return to their home.

Asylum seekers are folks forced to flee their country due to their government’s repression of their ethnic group, political stance, sexual or gender identity, etc.

I only raise this because in both international and US law each group is treated differently and has different rights.