Skip to comments.UN Small Arms Treaty Means Big Changes for our Constitution
Posted on 11/09/2012 12:21:58 PM PST by morethanright
By Mr. Curmudgeon:
Flush with a new sense of purpose after his re-election victory, President Obama signaled his administration's support for the United Nations Small Arms Treaty. What follows are two of the treaty's provisions:
That means every firearm, its various parts and ammunition will be regulated. And you, the "end-user," will earn the privilege of having your name recorded in an international registry.
"That can't happen here," you say, "The Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller denies the feds, the states and local authorities the power to restrict my 'right to bear arms.'"
If you believe so, you are dead wrong.
Most Americans believe the only way the United States Constitution can be revised is when Congress passes an amendment for the states to ratify. However, the president and Senate can do just that by signing and ratifying an international treaty. And just in case you have forgotten, Fast and Furious Democrats control the White House and Senate.
In 1920, the Supreme Court's ruling in Missouri vs. Holland said the Constitution's treaty-making provision (the Supremacy Clause) means that international agreements entered into by the United States are the "supreme law of the land." The issue in the case concerned the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. The U.S.-British agreement limited the hunting of certain endangered birds. The State of Missouri contested the treaty for violating their 10th Amendment state's rights.
Progressive Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the high court's majority, established a line of legal reasoning that persists to this day: That changing times requires rethinking the interpretation of our dusty and antiquated Constitution.
"... We must realize that they [the Founders] have called into life a being the development of which could not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of its begetters," wrote Holmes, "... We must consider what this country has become in deciding what that [10th] amendment has reserved."
In other words, the "Truths" the Founders declared to be "Self-Evident" are malleable clay. The Constitution is not a parchment containing the steadfast certitude of law but a living and evolving "being." More importantly, there is no need to exercise the constitutionally sanctioned remedies to amend the document when we have nine erudite high priests who are better suited to the task.
When President Obama signs the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, and if the Democratic Senate ratifies it, the Constitution's Supremacy Clause - as interpreted by Holmes - effectively removes our Second Amendment protection from the founding document.
It's more than a little ironic that an early 20th century treaty, designed to save birds, effectively renders us a nation of sitting ducks.
Article shared using the Free Republish tool on Tea Party Tribune.
Why don’t we defund the UN, since we are the major contributor to their existence.
It will never be ratified in the Senate.
Not even Obama’s Senate.
It’s a rubber stamp Congress.
Anyone who believes a treaty should override the Constitution is a traitor
Our Constitution Means UN Small Arms Treaty Don't Mean Squat!
2/3 senate vote for ratification....
can’t say it WON’T happen, but it is highly improbable..
and the supremacy clause does not apply, the UN is not supreme to the US Constitution...
‘Democrat’ and ‘Ratify’ have the word Rat in them. The Senate has the word ate in it. It also has ‘sen’, very close to ‘sin’. Combine the two and it’s easy to come up with ‘defy’.
Sinning rats ate away at our rights, and defy us.
If it is ratified by the Senate, any Senator voting ‘Aye’ will instantly become fodder for the 100 million Henry Bowman’s born on that day.
Not trying to give you a hard time, but neither party gives a fudge popsicle about our Constitution anymore.
Communist Tyrant Barry Davis Obama has many tests that must be met before he lowers himself to make a speech-action. Some of these tests are as follows:
1.) Will this speech-action fundamentally change America?
2.) Will this speech-action increase the power of the rulers over the ruled?
3.) Will this speech-action exact a significant amount of REVENGE on Americans who dare to oppose the implementation of Obamanation Communism?
IMHO, a speech-action by Communist tyrant Obama approving the destruction of our Right to Bear Arms would greatly pass all of the above 3 tests.
Thus, as an empty-chair tyrant, Communist Obama may make an additional Boy, do I ever love the Middle Class! Speech from time to time, but Corporate Jet Travel and time on the Golf Links are still ranked higher on the list of really fun things to do for the Illegal Alien Impostor in the White House.
BTW, with our sorry, spineless, RINO leaders back in Congress, Obama is going to REALLY enjoy the next 4 years!
The Constitution supercedes treaties, not the other way around.
Time to dust off Travis’ EFOD books and do some more reading this weekend.
Anytime any federal agent decides to obey orders to confiscate guns, it should be a fatal decision.
To those that refused to vote for “love of country”:
I would almost bet that the RINO’s mother lovers in the Senate would help pus this through, but outlawing guns and getting them are two different things.
Sometimes a push like this is a “Bridge too far”.
The Republicans control the House. So, what if they just kinda ‘forgot’ to put in any new funding?..........
In my estimation 25% of the most liberal loons at DU are 2nd amendment supporters
I don’t see 2/3rds of the Senate ratifying this and WE Control the Congress.
Even Tojo understood.
You are wrong about that. Look it up.
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.