The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Does denying civil rights by treaty equal breach of contract?

Bartholomew Roberts · May 29, 2009, 06:43 AM

If it is a civil right guaranteed by the Constitution then the treaty has no effect and is not enforceable.

Signing treaties that add or remove restrictions is not "breach of contract" since the contract in question (the Constitution) specifically authorizes the President to sign treaties and the Senate to ratify those treaties. That is just the downside of representative government with 300 million people, you won't always like everything they do.

Realistically though, look at it this way, if the treaty was signed by the President, ratified by the Senate (takes 2/3 majority), and upheld by the Supreme Court - exactly who is left on your side?

It would be an especially long reach to consider CIFTA to be THAT treaty since the treaty itself acknowledges that foreign governments have no obligation to enact the regulations called for in the treaty. The concern with CIFTA is that administrative agencies might use the treaty as the basis for revising administrative rules and regulations pertaining to firearms; not that it would suddenly enact a whole host of new laws.

May 29, 2009, 06:43 AM	#4
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	If it is a civil right guaranteed by the Constitution then the treaty has no effect and is not enforceable. Signing treaties that add or remove restrictions is not "breach of contract" since the contract in question (the Constitution) specifically authorizes the President to sign treaties and the Senate to ratify those treaties. That is just the downside of representative government with 300 million people, you won't always like everything they do. Realistically though, look at it this way, if the treaty was signed by the President, ratified by the Senate (takes 2/3 majority), and upheld by the Supreme Court - exactly who is left on your side? It would be an especially long reach to consider CIFTA to be THAT treaty since the treaty itself acknowledges that foreign governments have no obligation to enact the regulations called for in the treaty. The concern with CIFTA is that administrative agencies might use the treaty as the basis for revising administrative rules and regulations pertaining to firearms; not that it would suddenly enact a whole host of new laws.