Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defense hawks take cautious approach with NRA, UN arms trade treaty (Senate may ratify treaty)
The Hill ^ | 7/13/12 | Herb

Posted on 07/13/2012 6:26:35 PM PDT by pabianice

Defense hawks in the Senate are in a holding pattern on a United Nations arms treaty that’s drawing strong opposition from the National Rifle Association over Second Amendment concerns.

Several influential Republican defense hawks said Thursday they have to study the issue further before signing on to oppose it, despite a loud pressure campaign from the NRA.

NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre on Wednesday told the U.N. conference negotiating the agreement that 58 senators have pledged to oppose the treaty if it covers civilian arms over fears that would infringe on the right to bear arms. LaPierre pointed to letters signed by the senators last year.

But the comments from senators on Thursday signal the fate of the treaty in the Senate might remain more up in the air.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 112th; bho44; bhoun; hawks; stockpilesong; thestockpilesong; unarmstreaty; unweaponstreaty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last
To: pabianice
Any..repeat ANY Senator that votes for this treaty must be taken out, tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.

For those of you who might ask...yes a treaty ratified by the Senate has the same effect as an amendment to the Constitution and it is just as hard to repeal.

21 posted on 07/13/2012 7:23:14 PM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

“A treat can and will trump US law. Ask anyone who deals with shipping.”

That is not what I said so let me repeat.

A treaty cannot trump the Constitution, like the 2nd Ammendment. This is established case law.


That is the order.

22 posted on 07/13/2012 7:24:35 PM PDT by Azeem (There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Who? We need names!

23 posted on 07/13/2012 7:36:30 PM PDT by Bubbette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Azeem

Justice Black declared: “neither the cases nor their reasoning should be given any further expansion. The concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperant when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very dangerous doctrine and if allowed to flourish would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our government”.

While I agree that this case could be construed as to your assertion, with the court that we now have, I’m not so sure that this case would surfice as a defense... just saying. Did this case involve an agreement or a treaty?

24 posted on 07/13/2012 7:43:50 PM PDT by DaveinOK54 (Freedom is not Free and I'll never quit defending it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

You listed Linda twice. But that’s okay. She prolly wishes she could vote for the treaty twice.

25 posted on 07/13/2012 7:52:55 PM PDT by upchuck ("Definition of 'racist:' someone that is winning an argument with a liberal." ~ Peter Brimelow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
The treaty was conceived during the George W. Bush administration, when the United States was one of the few countries that voted against moving forward with it.

Twisted BS statement. Implies that "W" was instrumental in writting it. He was not, the UN was the culprit. The GOP and "W" opposed it. This is Reporter twisted speech.

26 posted on 07/13/2012 9:29:12 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Just oppose it in its entirety.

No qualifications or stipulations about “if it covers this” or “if it includes that”.

Just oppose it.

We already have too much UN meddling in our affairs.

27 posted on 07/14/2012 1:21:15 AM PDT by Iron Munro (Ayn Rand: "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

>> but 34 of them will be enough defeat it,

Apparently there’s a quorum factor that only concerns those present, not the entire body. The implication being that the RINOs could simply call in sick the day of the vote yielding the outcome to the Leftist scumbags that are determined to continue raping the Constitution, our Bill of Rights.

28 posted on 07/14/2012 1:38:18 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

which lake and where in that lake.....Mine were discovered stollen after we came home from a weeks vaca and realized the house was broken into.

29 posted on 07/14/2012 3:53:09 AM PDT by CGASMIA68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

As we get closer they are pulling out all the stops from all sides. As the more important criminal behavior rises to the top the more smoke and mirror stories will enter the picture hopefully to capture the peoples interest while the dirty work is being negotiated and finalized. I want to see prosecutions and jail time for thiese treasonist bastards, can we all agree?

30 posted on 07/14/2012 4:21:33 AM PDT by ronnie raygun (B B)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DaveinOK54
It was a treaty between England and the U.S.

Reid v. Covert is not just a case. It is THE landmark case on the supremecy of the Constitution over treaties.

Here is what the Court wrote: (my bold)

P.17 - 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.*fn33 For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:

P.18 - This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null.*fn34 It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.

31 posted on 07/14/2012 4:42:43 AM PDT by Azeem (There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Azeem

Thanks Azeem

32 posted on 07/14/2012 5:32:06 AM PDT by DaveinOK54 (Freedom is not Free and I'll never quit defending it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Linda’s such a drama queen! ;>

33 posted on 07/14/2012 9:59:17 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

Thanks, Gene. You’re right, I’d forgotten that. I wouldn’t put it past some RINOs to pull that stunt.

34 posted on 07/14/2012 10:00:24 AM PDT by jazusamo ("Intellect is not wisdom" -- Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson