Posted on 12/26/2014 9:12:14 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
During the past several years, the expected signing by the Obama Administration of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) has raised the serious question among gun owners of whether the terms of a treaty can take precedence over the rights secured by the Constitution or the laws of the land which derive from it. That is, can our inalienable rights be undone by International Law? Secretary of State John Kerry signed the ATT last year and the Treaty entered into force—took effect—two days ago on Christmas Eve.
Apostles of one world government have endeavored to convince the American people that treaties, or International Law, must embody the supreme law of the land. In 1952, Secretary of State and Council on Foreign Relations member John Foster Dulles told the American Bar Association that “Treaty law can override the Constitution.” “Treaties for example…can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.” (1)
But the Supreme Court has more than once decided against the propaganda of the new world order crowd. In the landmark case Reid v Covert, the Court ruled”…no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.” In short, as “[the Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty,” the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land and treaties may neither supplant nor amend it. (2)
Last year, Attorney General Eric Holder, the man charged with defending the Constitution, argued before the Supreme Court that the defendant in Bond vs the United States should be tried in Federal Court according to the Chemical Warfare Act, rather than in a state court according to state law because she smeared...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
The damnable part is they keep trying, like the raptors in Jurassic Park.
That tenacity has pretty much worked for gay “marriage” and now they are going after the Constitution itself.
Teach your children well, for they will be the ones fighting the last thread of the Constitution against being ruled from Brussels.
Should this be a pen and phone alert? In my eyes, none of this u.n. garbage trumps the constitution. As long as the senate (honorable gaggle?!) doesn’t RATify it, as far as I’m concerned, they can use it as tp.
>>Should this be a pen and phone alert? In my eyes, none of this u.n. garbage trumps the constitution.<<
My point is that it doesn’t now (although IIRC, “International law” was successfully used in a case early last year — I don’t remember the case or how) — but we need to be vigilant — and the children REALLY need to be vigilant.
The camel is trying to get into the tent and he is nosing at all corners.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing to have someone run for President and say that he’s going to round file all u.n. BS treaties and sign a memorandum voiding all local anti gun laws, and, well, the wish list goes on for miles. I’ll most likely be disappointed in the next batch of can’t-idates.
I will be happy with a POTUS who promises to sign just as many XOs as the obozo, since he/she will undo every single one.
What constitution?
And the GOPe just sits there. The take-away here is that Obama and company have a plan, or a series of plans that they execute. The GOPe has the plan of default, that is, react. Like playing eternal firemen, the fire is going to win. Like playing an endless game of whack-a-mole, the mole will win.
Obama way: Say “Second Amendment is so valuable” while his actions cut it to smithereens.
Given the current understanding of the relevance of the Constitution throughout the government, yes, the unratified treaty will take precedence and the Justice Department will act accordingly. Importation of all arms and ammo will be halted and prices of ammo will be forced through the roof by requiring tungsten bullets and shot.
You give the gopes too much credit. Their reaction is purely vocal and weak. They do not even turn on the water to their hoses or unreel them.
Article 6, Section 2: 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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
I disagree. The logic of the way you read it the "Laws of the United States" would also trump the Constitution which they do not.
But all it would take is one Executive to decide he's not going to submit to the USSC and a treaty becomes the law of the land.
Thanks. I knew I knew that from previous discussions but couldn’t remember where it was stated. A lot of people will argue that treaties won’t override the constitution. They could be wrong.
Great article...
I would like to argue that the 9th and 10th amendments being after this clause would preclude any usurpation of rights and powers. In fact any subsequent amendments that do not specifically mention abridgement of the 9th and 10th should probably not be construed so as to abridge them.
Should the government decide to interpret a treaty so as to abridge the 9th and 10th amendments, it would seem reasonable to assume the worst and conclude the government is illegitimate and there is no jurisdiction in which to enjoy due process of law.
This is the danger of the game they play...
With obamsky’s newest minions now in control of the Senate, this treaty is assured ratification...IMHO...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.