Frank,

You are referring to the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty in which meetings have been going on all month in New York City. I've been following this closely. Yes, this is an attmept to take guns out of the hands of private ownership. Some say that would never happen in this country, but pre-conference position papers call for exactly that. Any treaty with the UN would supersede the 2nd Ammendment. Anybody that doesn't believe that can look it up. It's a fact!

Fortunately, we have the NRA there on our side to make sure our own government doesn't undermine the Constitution. We also have many senators on our side as any such treaty would have to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. In fact, 57 senators signed a letter and sent it to Barry Soetoro to remind him of that. In other words, it wouldn't pass Senate approval.

The sad thing is that they try to keep things like this quiet. You don't hear anything about it on the news and I bet you that many gun owners don't even know what's going on. It might be signed, but it will never be ratified.

Edited to change my wording (for Peter)

A "dumb ass"? David, you only debase yourself referring to the President, or anyone really, that way.

Unless the Supreme Court has overruled Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), I'm pretty doubtful that treaties supersede the Constitution.

Kenny you are right, a treaty cannot supersede the Constitution.

My premises was made on Article VI. Section 2 which says, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”

If I’m interpreting it wrong, then my apologies. I don’t want to give out false information.

Edited to add:

Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and Breyer have both said that international law should take precedence over US law.

Duh. Kenny shame on you for pointing out the obvious.

Words of wisdom:

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?opti...talk&Itemid=69

Sincerely, Clayton

David, as I understand it that provision means a treaty takes precedence over the laws of any state -- it's a federalism provision. A law passed by Congress is also the supreme law of the land, but is still subject to the Constitution -- as is a treaty.

Wow, I did not think that this thread would go in the direction it has gone.

Sorry I even started this thread

Why? It's a discussion within a discussion thread within a discussion forum: People having intelligent conversation without beating each other to death, which is fairly rare on the internet, and to be commended.

I don't think straying from victim empathy is a bad thing - we all are very aware of how tragic this was.

pertinent language from Reid v. Covert:

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. ... It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.

The latest in this morning's news is evidence indicating possible schizophrenia.

The more I read about this guy I am thinking he very well may truly be mentally ill. At first I thought not but now it is seeming like he is.

I don't think it will matter. Murder seems to be the line drawn by the public, and whether or not the killer was mentally ill is irrelevant to them - in fact, it's an impediment in their minds, to getting the justice that society needs. Here's an example, which shows the "common sense" of the jury:

"After pushing a woman, Kendra Webdale, under a moving train, Andrew Goldstein, a former schizophrenic psychiatric patient, was charged and convicted of second-degree murder. Though he had only been released from a mental facility for a couple weeks, the jury rejected Goldstein’s plea of insanity, and sentenced him to twenty-five-to-life in prison. However, to prevent similar incidents, New York passed “Kendra’s Law”, which, had it been in place sooner, would have forced Goldstein to take medication for his condition."

Scott, I think juries are skeptical of mental illness defenses because it's difficult to swallow the proposition that someone who carries out a pre-meditated crime is so impaired that they aren't capable of distinguishing right from wrong, or controlling their conduct. Particularly where the evidence of insanity typically would be an expert psychiatrist paid for by the defense, which has been contradicted by a prosecution psychiatrist.

Peter, I'm skeptical of such insanity defenses as well, but the example I showed above indicates that society needs its pound of flesh, even when they know someone was insane PRIOR to killing. I also understand that most people don't understand that the ability to plan a killing does not mean that someone is operating in his own mind - nor do they care (although I'm sure some have slight qualms at having the insane lethally injected), as long as the person was acting with a mind that performed acts rational for a killer.

Scott let me give you a hypothetical. Schizophrenic, does fine on meds, takes a medication holiday because of side effects or for whatever reason, in uncontrolled state commits murder. Just put him back on meds and send him on his way?

Peter, schitzophrenia is not a "get out of jail free card". From what I've heard, the psych wards within the prison system is much worse then the general population. The people in there can be unstable and dangerous.

Your hypothetical is very possible and is something that I deal with on a frequent basis. Not only from "taking a vaction from meds" but also from the meds not having the same effect over time, also over medicating.

What are we supposed to do? The average schitzophrenic doesn't end up mass murdering... Most end up living a VERY difficult life being seriously uncomfortable in their own skin. Not having a normal functioning brain is a hard way to wake up in the morning. It's also very hard on the families of them.

It's very frustrating to me that only mass murder will very slightly raise awareness, and only for a short period of time. It doesn't matter what the jury decides. This guy will never see the light of day, regardless of whether or not they accept an illness plea.

I've always been of the opinion that a rational person pleads insanity and an insane person is not aware they're insane.

But Matt, suppose, and maybe it's a hypothetical that doesn't exist, but suppose that a schizophrenic would be normal or at least functional so long as they take meds. What would be the point of confining them indefinitely for a crime they committed while off the meds?

You nailed it.

I've said this in several posts, but it bears repeating: Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder affect the part of the brain that controls 'insight'. This means that schizophrenics NEVER know that they are schizophrenic. They have to be talked into taking meds for reasons other than: you are schizophrenic. People with bipolar disorder do not have insight during mania, but usually (but not always) have insight when they come down.

It's a tough concept to wrap your brain around - unfortunately, many psychiatrists can't do it either.

Peter - the 'medical vacation' you refer to is VERY common with schizophrenics; in fact, almost all take such a vacation regularly. It's a tough illness to deal with, but it's still mental illness.

Matt - thanks for this post.

Did anyone here mention how we sent a notebook with his plans/drawings a week before to his psychiatrist but no one read it.

Peter, there are many levels of schitzophrenia ranging from mild to the very extreme. Once it's known what a particular individual is capable of, like in this case, or any case involving murder, it's too risky to trust any medication to keep the individual stable enough for reintegration into society, IMO.

I haven't heard of any case where someone snapped, killed somebody, was given medication, and sent home.

It's really up to families, of the mentally ill, to make sure things are ok. For me it's been a 15 year battle that I expect to never end. I'd love to see more funding, better research, and better understanding.

Scott - thanks for you posts too.

Matt, do you think it's likely Holmes' family, or psychiatrist, had some clue about just how disturbed he may have been?

Imagine someone, a close family member, suddenly changing into a completely different person, almost like they were possessed. It's really hard to ignore, unless you're trying really hard.

It's now known that he was saw a psychiatrist, confidentiality hides the details for now. A psychiatrist can't prescribe medication but should have referred him to a psychologist.

Schizophrenia can be difficult for a family to come to terms... But what he did/planned doesn't happen overnight. I think there's plenty of blame to go around.

I feel so bad for those kids and adults that died. It's important for parents to know this is a possibility and to be aware. No one else will do it; however, we'll see what the psych knew.

A psychologist can prescribe meds...

He was seeing a psychiatrist, Lynne Fenton, MD.

I had it backwards, my mistake.

Since this thread has over 5,000 hits, and many young men in their 20's read it, as well as parents of children that age...I'll take advantage and post once more.

No parent wants to admit their child has a mental illness, so they will write off the odd behavior to other things - 'mental illness' will never even cross their minds. Both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder keep the person from having the insight to realize they are ill. Given these unfortunate facts, no one will be prepared. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. This affects MANY people; however, despite the fact that many of your friends have already dealt with it, you won't even be aware of the fact, and if you are - they will spare you the details. I was totally surprised at how many people I know either have it, have a child who has it, or a spouse who has it.

Bottom line - there is usually no one to blame: not for ignorance, for incorrect responses, for anything. It's just a tough situation. The best you can do if it hits your family, is to call someone (or PM someone) who has been through it. They will all help you.

Love it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epZod2qyyN4

Wow, that was really vague... I don't get the "It takes more than just statements," Part.

I'm guessing the problem here is that Dr Fenton worked for the university and their policies are different. Many cases are evaluated in a hospital, too bad this one wasn't.

My prayers go out to the families of the deceased. :(

Reporting it to police is useless unless he's seen to be an immediate danger. Even then, unless it can be shown to a judge that he is a "grave danger", either to himself or to others, a judge generally won't sign an order to involuntarily confine.

I've seen people get placed on holds by a hospital. Do they call a judge or something? Actually just curious.

It seems that way, but there's a little more to it.

In Washington State, a social worker at the hospital will have a MHP (Mental Health Professional) come out to evaluate the person. If the MHP thinks the person presents a grave danger to himself or others, they will ask a judge to sign the 72-hr hold order. The MHP will look for an available bed at a psychiatric facility, then make arrangements for the person to be transported. If no beds are available, they stay in the E.R. until one is found.

NM- too negative

Sincerely, Clayton