|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 26, 2011, 02:57 PM | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2011
Posts: 4
|
Side-stepping the Constitution
I'm surprised I haven't seen this posted anywhere yet...
http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcem...hed-by-clinton Lets forget for a second that an international treaty requires a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate for ratification. This is blatant abuse of the executive branch's authority to enter into treaties with foreign nations in an effort to bypass our legislative branch and undermine the Constitution. Isn't this a direct conflict with the President's oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution?" Edit: Removed names. They are included in the article mentioned. Last edited by Mauszer; October 26, 2011 at 03:02 PM. |
October 26, 2011, 03:08 PM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
|
Quote:
Thank god the anti gun types won't have a 2/3 majority ANY time soon. In 5 or 10 years though who knows? Does this kind of treaty have a shelf life (can it be voted on 10 years after passage by the UN? Or does the Senate have X number of months or years to ratify it.) PS: I can think of atleast 2 other threads where this issue has come up, Just havn't seen activity in weeks. |
|
October 26, 2011, 03:14 PM | #3 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
Brought up numerous times here actually...
Brent |
October 26, 2011, 03:18 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Sunny Southern Idaho
Posts: 1,909
|
Quote:
That treaty is well worth keeping our eyes on, but as far as the Senate goes, it's DOA. I don't see what the current administration is doing regarding that treaty that is an abuse of its power. The Executive is responsible for negotiating treaties, good or bad, and that's what Secretary Clinton and the State Department is doing. Oh, it's a bad treaty, that's for sure, but not an abuse of power.
__________________
Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop - Gus McCrae |
|
October 26, 2011, 03:21 PM | #5 | ||
Junior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2011
Posts: 4
|
This is from Senate.gov
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
October 26, 2011, 03:22 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
|
And a tre4aty cannot alter the terms of the Constitution.
Any portion that did would not be valid (no matter what the Senate ratified). |
October 26, 2011, 03:35 PM | #7 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2011
Posts: 4
|
Quote:
I did however learn quite a bit about treaties just now (which is never a bad thing), and the original article that I referenced needs some editing. In its current form it is fairly inaccurate but still scary stuff. |
|
October 26, 2011, 05:55 PM | #8 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,458
|
Quote:
|
|
October 26, 2011, 10:58 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
|
So basically Obama can sign this thing and his party can just bide its time waiting for the RIGHT time to force it down our throats, just like healthcare...swell. I think a REPUBLICAN controlled congress needs to pass an amendment to the constitution immediately that CLEARLY states no treaty's shall be signed that interfere with Americans constitutional rights or something to that effect. I know my language is broad but it is needed.
|
October 26, 2011, 11:25 PM | #10 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
People act like treaties are untouchable and written in stone; they're not. Keep in mind that countries routinely abrogate treaties and ignore international agreements when it's convenient for them to do so. Just because the US Senate ratifies a piece of paper negotiated in an international forum doesn't mean that it can't (and won't) be tossed by the wayside later.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|||
October 27, 2011, 04:20 AM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2005
Location: AZ
Posts: 3,113
|
Yawn.
In other news, the sky is falling. Anybody wanna buy some helmets? The whole article is recycled quotes of Joan Sharon, who appears to be an ignorant and sensationalist peddler of misinformation. It's not even interesting. There's already been what, a dozen locked threads about this and two or three reasonable ones? Quote:
I mean, erm, damn blue helmets! Cold dead hands and NWO, and such. |
|
October 27, 2011, 05:25 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,592
|
I would suspect that if this treaty ever did pass the Senate, it would quickly be challenged in the courts.
__________________
Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen. |
October 27, 2011, 06:17 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
You have it right when you say nations ignore treaties when it is convenient for them to do so. There really isn't such a thing as "neutral" anymore, although the concept was generally honored in WWI, when I suppose men were more honorable. But not in WWII. We weren't so good at keeping treaties with the Indians either, although it really wasn't the government that ignored them, it was the people.
While the constitution may be the supreme law of the land, plenty of people here wish otherwise, generally crying states rights or something like that. I think we should either abolish state governments or the federal government. Just an idea.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
October 27, 2011, 06:48 AM | #14 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...ll+arms+treaty |
|
October 27, 2011, 07:36 AM | #15 |
Member
Join Date: December 23, 2007
Location: Central South Carolina
Posts: 89
|
If it is ratified, can a later Senate vote de-ratify it?
scpapa
__________________
NRA Training Counselor NRA Advanced Pistol Instructor NRA RTBAV Regional Counselor Member IALEFI, SCLEOA |
October 27, 2011, 08:04 AM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
The guys who write most of this stuff are alarmists. First they tell you that the UN is going to take your guns. Then they tell you that for a small donation they will fight the dastardly UN. The NRA and the other guns rights organizations have bought into this fund raising tactic. No international treaty, ratified or not, over-rules the US Constitution. In 1957 the US Supreme Court ruled in a case known as Reid vs Covert. Italics are mine. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...vol=354&page=1 Quote: 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. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [354 U.S. 1, 17] War, would remain in effect. 31 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. 32 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. Last edited by thallub; October 27, 2011 at 08:11 AM. |
|
October 27, 2011, 09:16 AM | #17 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Right now any threat of the UN Small Arms Treaty is remote at best; but that is in no small part because some organizations, like the NRA, have gotten certified as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and gone to the UN. Just this past summer, Wayne LaPierre addressed the UN Small Arms Treaty group. And the NRA's role in getting a filibuster-proof majority of Senators to say they wouldn't ratify such a treaty was helpful as well. So, even though it remains a remote threat (in part thanks to such work) there is fighting that needs to be done there and there are organizations that are doing it. However, I'd be skeptical of any organization that claims to be fighting the UN treaty but hasn't even bothered to go to New York and participate in the process. |
|
October 27, 2011, 09:39 AM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
"Fighting the UN small arms treaty" is part of the fund raising process. The people who run those organizations are aware this is a red herring issue. They are capitalizing on this issue because it stirs up gunowners who are not well informed. The proposed UN small arms treaty would not restrict gun ownership in member countries. It is about the international peddling of small arms weapons. Last edited by thallub; October 27, 2011 at 11:58 AM. |
|
October 27, 2011, 12:17 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
Ug, where'd I put that picture of beating a dead horse...
|
October 27, 2011, 06:01 PM | #20 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
|
October 27, 2011, 10:07 PM | #21 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Frankly, I think you are way too optimistic about what this treaty will do. I don't expect the U. S. to ratify the treaty; but I'll bet you money right now that the final result would have restricted gun ownership here if implemented. It may not restrict it as much in the countries that do adopt it, since many of them are already much more restrictive. |
|
October 28, 2011, 06:08 AM | #22 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?e...6RM7Rhorg7zQ-- Quote:
Last edited by thallub; October 28, 2011 at 06:39 AM. |
||
October 28, 2011, 06:49 AM | #23 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
No treaty, UN or otherwise, trumps the Constitution. On the other hand, we have 3-4 Justices on the highest court in the land, and numerous judges in lower courts, who don't think that an individual Second Amendment right exists - and the outlines of that right in case law are still very, very narrow. That is the position of last hope, not the first line of defense.
Quote:
|
|
October 28, 2011, 08:08 AM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
|
|
October 28, 2011, 08:59 AM | #25 | ||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
My general point is not that we need to man the ramparts and do an all out push on this, we do not. However, one of the reasons it remains a distant threat is because of the good work done by pro-RKBA U.S. NGOs. So we shouldn't dismiss every single attempt to raise funds around this issue as fear-mongering. In particular, both the NRA and SAF have gotten certified as NGOs and are taking an active part in the negotiations, both by reporting on what is going on and addressing the UN committee. As it stands now though, President Obama has indicated he will only sign the treaty if all the other countries agree to it. Since this would be a significant problem for the arms manufacturing industries in China and Russia, who have much more lax export controls than the United States, I would be surprised if that happens. Even if it did happen, we have enough Senators who have indicated they will not ratify a treaty with offensive provisions that even if the Brady Campaign got to pick Senators instead of selecting by popular vote, we would still be safe until after the 2014 elections. So, is this an urgent concern? No. But the concerns being raised are not fear-mongering, they are just concerns that aren't immediate. And concerning draft resolutions of the UN Small Arms Trade Treaty, here are a few more, I've highlighted in bold those portions that might concern U. S. gun owners: http://www.un.org/disarmament/convar...Documents.html Quote:
|
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|