Huckabee: We should jackhammer the UN into the East River

[driftdiver]

Idiotic comment.

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

And you are an expert on being an idiot.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

And you are an expert on being an idiot.

Another idiotic reply.


Do you have any that aren't idiotic?

[driftdiver]

Another idiotic reply.


Do you have any that aren't idiotic?

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

Yep, another personal attack by a weak minded troll.   How sad you've become in your old age.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

Yep, another personal attack by a weak minded troll.   How sad you've become in your old age.

You made a stupid comment. First step is admitting it.

[driftdiver]

You made a stupid comment. First step is admitting it.

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

Every time you are faced with something you don't understand (happens frequently) you go on the attack and start insulting people.  Its quite pathetic.  I'd imagine your momma taught you better but the teachings just didn't stick.

If you stopped to think for even a second you would realize there are many times when the established law is insufficient to protect people.  Times of war, emergency, disaster and so forth require a different set of rules.

The UN and globalists are using pathetic losers like you to manipulate this countries laws in order to destroy it.   I know you don't understand that, but its happening as sure as the sun will set tonight.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The UN and globalists are using pathetic losers like you to manipulate this countries laws in order to destroy it.

Haha some conspiracy shit here, even using "globalists" which is the typical Trumper low-IQer term (ie. "you").

[driftdiver]

Haha some conspiracy shit here, even using "globalists" which is the typical Trumper low-IQer term (ie. "you").

@Weird Tolkienish Figure
There is a cure for ignorance. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

@Weird Tolkienish Figure
There is a cure for ignorance.

Yes, it's called not reading your posts. 

[driftdiver]

Yes, it's called not reading your posts. 

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

How very liberal of you.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

A special headquarters agreement, signed by Secretary-General Trygve Lie and US secretary of state George C. Marshall at Lake Success on 26 June 1947, has been in force since 21 November 1947.

It defines the 18 acres of land in New York City located between 42nd and 48th Streets and First Avenue and the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive as the Headquarters District of the United Nations.

Subsequently, by supplemental agreements between the UN and the US, additional office space located in buildings in the vicinity has been included in the Headquarters District.

The Headquarters District is "under the control and authority of the United Nations as provided in this agreement."

It is the seat of the UN, and the agreement stipulates that the district "shall be inviolable."

Federal, state, and local personnel on official duty may enter it only with the consent of the Secretary-General.

The UN may make regulations for the area.

US federal, state, and local law, insofar as it is inconsistent with UN regulations, does not apply here; otherwise, the US courts would have jurisdiction over actions and transactions taking place in the Headquarters District.

Read more: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/United-Nations/United-Nations-Headquarters-HEADQUARTERS-AGREEMENT-BETWEEN-THE-UN-AND-THE-US.html#ixzz4U8zx62XF

That's all true, but somewhat irrelevant.  The Constitution, laws, and treaties (ratified by the Senate) are the supreme law of the land.  A "special headquarters agreement" signed by the U.N. and Marshall only has whatever force is granted to it by Congress by statute.  In other words, a new Congress and President are perfectly free to pass whatever laws they wish modifying or even eliminating that relationship.  And even if there was a formal treaty granting that land to the U.N., we would still be within our sovereign rights to withdraw from that treaty any time we wished.  In fact, a President can withdraw from a treaty without even obtaining approval of the Senate -- recall Carter unilaterally abrogating the mutual defense treaty with the Republic of China.

In other words, the control we have given to the U.N. over that property neither permanent nor inviolate.  If we want them gone, there are perfectly easy, legal ways for us to do that.  And if your link is correct/complete (it doesn't cite to any statutes), then the U.N. mission is entirely a creation of (essentially) an executive order/determination, and its authority over that land could be reversed by a new President on Day 1 if he so chose.

I'm not saying he should do that, but I also see no harm in a new Administration casually reminding folks of that fact.

@thackney

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

How very liberal of you.

[thackney]

@thackney

And that predisposition for law and order is being used against you and will turn our children into slaves if we don't stop it.   This isn't about ignoring the law to stop your neighbors dog from pooping in the yard.  Its about stopping people intent on destroying this nation and its people.

And that can still be done following our own laws.

[Suppressed]

NO! You are wrong! We could and IMHO should withdraw from the UN immediately and require them to get their sorry asses out of our country but of course, we won't do that because we have become FAR too gutless and politically correct for that!

Yes, and "we" could shut down every church, or every Chick-fil-A, or Mar-a-Lago, etc.  All examples of booting people from privately owned property that is within the jurisdiction of the United States, and states, and municipalities. 

But, fortunately, we're not at the point of having the government act like totalitarians and grab private property on a whim.  Well, not often.

[Bigun]

That's all true, but somewhat irrelevant.  The Constitution, laws, and treaties (ratified by the Senate) are the supreme law of the land.  A "special headquarters agreement" signed by the U.N. and Marshall only has whatever force is granted to it by Congress by statute.  In other words, a new Congress and President are perfectly free to pass whatever laws they wish modifying or even eliminating that relationship.  And even if there was a formal treaty granting that land to the U.N., we would still be within our sovereign rights to withdraw from that treaty any time we wished.  In fact, a President can withdraw from a treaty without even obtaining approval of the Senate -- recall Carter unilaterally abrogating the mutual defense treaty with the Republic of China.

In other words, the control we have given to the U.N. over that property neither permanent nor inviolate.  If we want them gone, there are perfectly easy, legal ways for us to do that.  And if your link is correct/complete (it doesn't cite to any statutes), then the U.N. mission is entirely a creation of (essentially) an executive order/determination, and its authority over that land could be reversed by a new President on Day 1 if he so chose.

I'm not saying he should do that, but I also see no harm in a new Administration casually reminding folks of that fact.

@thackney

@Maj. Bill Martin

Thank you!  Well said and ENTIRELY correct!

[Bigun]

Yes, and "we" could shut down every church, or every Chick-fil-A, or Mar-a-Lago, etc.  All examples of booting people from privately owned property that is within the jurisdiction of the United States, and states, and municipalities. 

But, fortunately, we're not at the point of having the government act like totalitarians and grab private property on a whim.  Well, not often.

 

Children shouldn't play with matches!  They are likely to hurt themselves and possibly others!

@Maj. Bill Martin has it entirely right!

[Hondo69]

But, fortunately, we're not at the point of having the government act like totalitarians and grab private property on a whim.  Well, not often.

I know this isn't the place to rehash Kelo v. City of New London (2005).  And surely we don't need to get into the federal land grab in Western States right here.  But just for a bit of devilish fun, we might want go the "save the children" route since that is a favorite battle cry of both the left and the enviro-radicals.

Citing concerns for "sustainable development" and borrowing wording straight out of the Agenda 21 bible, a proposal could be whipped up stating the UN needs a little structural overhaul to bring it up to international standards.  Of course it will need to be shut down during the overhaul.

Nationally appropriate mitigation actions [NAMAs] as well as low-emission development strategies will be employed during the re-outfitting.  It should take less than 6 years to eradicate all the pre-Kyoto materials and air handling devices and no more than another 14 years to replace them with smart technology.

[Bigun]

I know this isn't the place to rehash Kelo v. City of New London (2005).  And surely we don't need to get into the federal land grab in Western States right here.  But just for a bit of devilish fun, we might want go the "save the children" route since that is a favorite battle cry of both the left and the enviro-radicals.

Citing concerns for "sustainable development" and borrowing wording straight out of the Agenda 21 bible, a proposal could be whipped up stating the UN needs a little structural overhaul to bring it up to international standards.  Of course it will need to be shut down during the overhaul.

Nationally appropriate mitigation actions [NAMAs] as well as low-emission development strategies will be employed during the re-outfitting.  It should take less than 6 years to eradicate all the pre-Kyoto materials and air handling devices and no more than another 14 years to replace them with smart technology.

@Hondo69

 

I like the way you think!

[Suppressed]

In other words, the control we have given to the U.N. over that property neither permanent nor inviolate.  If we want them gone, there are perfectly easy, legal ways for us to do that.  And if your link is correct/complete (it doesn't cite to any statutes), then the U.N. mission is entirely a creation of (essentially) an executive order/determination, and its authority over that land could be reversed by a new President on Day 1 if he so chose.

I'm not saying he should do that, but I also see no harm in a new Administration casually reminding folks of that fact.

@thackney

@Maj. Bill Martin @Bigun

There's a difference between owning something and ruling it.  The agreement referenced above was for jurisdiction, not ownership.  The UN still owns the property, so even if we removed legal jurisdiction from the UN complex, we couldn't "jackhammer it" without obtaining the property somehow. 

So the question is... Buy it?  Or seize it?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin @Bigun

There's a difference between owning something and ruling it.  The agreement referenced above was for jurisdiction, not ownership.  The UN still owns the property, so even if we removed legal jurisdiction from the UN complex, we couldn't "jackhammer it" without obtaining the property somehow. 

So the question is... Buy it?  Or seize it?

@Suppressed , @Bigun

Neither is necessary.  End the treaty, remove all U.N. legal/jurisdictional control, and remove diplomatic status/immunity for all U.N. personnel.  Don't grant visas to U.N. personnel.  It'd die out real quickly....

[Wingnut]

Bulldoze the building, salt the earth beneath it, and then nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

The institution has a substantial dollar value attached to it.

[Bigun]

@Suppressed , @Bigun

Neither is necessary.  End the treaty, remove all U.N. legal/jurisdictional control, and remove diplomatic status/immunity for all U.N. personnel.  Don't grant visas to U.N. personnel.  It'd die out real quickly....

Yeah! I know!

[Lando Lincoln]

Hmmm... will come back to this...