The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

View Poll Results: Do treaties that deny US citizens' rights constitute breach of contract?
Yes 18 81.82%
No 4 18.18%
Voters: 22. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 28, 2009, 07:06 PM   #1
FALPhil
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2007
Location: Racoon City
Posts: 933
Does denying civil rights by treaty equal breach of contract?

This is a follow up thread to the 1977 US-Mexican Arms Treaty thread.

If a treaty is made with a foreign power that denies enumerated rights to US citizens:

- is it enforceable?
- is it legal?
- does it have any meaning?
FALPhil is offline  
Old May 28, 2009, 07:19 PM   #2
RedneckFur
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 14, 2007
Location: Sotheastern US
Posts: 1,417
I would hope that it isnt legal, and I'm sure that our founding fathers would say the same, but with todays leadership, its very difficult to say how it will all turn out.

I'm going to watch this thread and see if any intresting information turns up.
__________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
-George Orwell
RedneckFur is offline  
Old May 28, 2009, 10:52 PM   #3
obxned
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2007
Location: OBX, NC
Posts: 1,128
Does denying civil rights by treaty equal breach of contract?

Sounds more like treason to me.
__________________
“If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.” Ronald Reagan

I'm a proud member of a North Carolina Committee of Safety
obxned is offline  
Old May 29, 2009, 06:43 AM   #4
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,598
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 29, 2009, 07:36 AM   #5
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,231
No, it is not a contract in the sense that it is not an agreement between parties to which both parties have actually agreed. Essentially, Constitutional Rights are forced upon citizens by the government. Citizens may or may not opt to exercise said rights, but that doesn't matter in terms of whether or not the Constitution is a contract. The Constitution is simply the highest form of law and is no more a contract than an anti dumping pollution law.

Quote:
Sounds more like treason to me.
Then you apparently don't know what treason is. The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old May 29, 2009, 02:31 PM   #6
FALPhil
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2007
Location: Racoon City
Posts: 933
OK, but what is the duty of the citizen when the treaty terms adversely impact his rights?

And BTW, civil rights are not forced on the citizens by the government. Rights, by definition, exist whether or not the government exists or not.
FALPhil is offline  
Old May 29, 2009, 06:06 PM   #7
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,231
Quote:
And BTW, civil rights are not forced on the citizens by the government. Rights, by definition, exist whether or not the government exists or not.
Uh, no. What you are talking about is called "natural rights" and natural rights do not involve firearms.

Constitutional (civil) rights are legal rights and are contingent on laws. The 2nd Amendment is a civil right. Note that the 2nd Amendment was granted or forced upon the People by the Goverment when the Goverment decided to amend the Constitution, which was created not by the whole of the population, voted or agreed upon by the population. The population did not vote or agree upon the Amendments either. If you are physically within the bounds of the United States, they apply to you - whether you want them to or not. They do not apply to you necessarily if you are not in the bounds of the United States (or its territories).
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old May 29, 2009, 07:16 PM   #8
FALPhil
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2007
Location: Racoon City
Posts: 933
That is in direct contrast to everything I have read by Madison, Jefferson, Hancock, Adams, Hamilton, and Jay. Not to mention the Magna Carta and most other Judeo-Christian documents which tackle the concept of rights.

Regardless, civil rights are a subset of rights. If they do not exist without government, then they are "privileges", not rights, the government being the author and grantor.

Natural rights do involve the right to self defense, which includes weapons based on escalation. Weapons includes firearms.

I think you are looking at the issue backwards. Rights are not forced on the people by government, rather the people's rights are enforced by government, at least in a just society. In an unjust society, rights are ignored (or worse) by government.

Are you saying, either practically or theoretically, that the people serve the government, rather than the other way around? Or are you just yanking my chain?
FALPhil is offline  
Old May 29, 2009, 09:41 PM   #9
ftd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 11, 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 109
Quote:
Constitutional (civil) rights are legal rights and are contingent on laws. The 2nd Amendment is a civil right.
Sorry 00,
The US Constitution is law. This law defines why we are forming the goverment, the basic structure of the federal government and some relational definitions of the States, assigns authorities and responsibilities of the various pieces of that structure, how we change the constitution, and lists specifically certain rights that government has no or, at least, limited authority over (including, in the 10th amendment, any authority not listed in the constitution - this the most ignored part of the constitution, today).

All rights (if you don't like "natural rights", substibite "inalienable rights"), are assumed, with certain thought to be important enough to list specifically.

The 2nd Amendment is not a civil right. It is law, a law that, at the least, limits the government's authority to interfere with the pre-existing right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
ftd is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07909 seconds with 10 queries