Skip to comments.UN seeks Arms Trade Treaty in tough talks
Posted on 03/27/2013 7:11:21 PM PDT by Olog-hai
UN members were presented on Wednesday with a final draft on a proposed Arms Trade Treaty, an attempt to instill some level of control into a largely unregulated industry. After nine days of touchy talks, the president of the negotiating conference, Australian diplomat Peter Woolcott, laid down his final attempt at compromise.
I will not consider any further amendments. It is take it or leave, Woolcott told the conference at the UNs New York headquarters.
The text would cover all cross-border trade in conventional weapons like tanks, combat aircraft, missiles and launchers, warships and some light weapons. The negotiators had previously said during the talks that in any eventual deal, domestic arms sales would not be regulated and laws permitting people in some countries to own weapons would not be affected.
The powerful US-based National Rifle Association contests this, however, saying it will seek to stop any treaty in the US Senate if it is ratified.
(Excerpt) Read more at dw.de ...
Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power
“As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated.”
TREATIES DO NOT SUPERCEDE THE CONSTITUTION
Curtis W. Caine, MD
Thomas Jefferson was clear on this point: "If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution. Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." Alexander Hamilton agreed: "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States."(2)
In spite of all of the obvious above, some people doggedly insist that "treaties supersede the Constitution" because they want treaties to supersede the Constitution so they can escape the chains of the Constitution! And they plan and scheme relentlessly toward achieving that end. Some even boast of having made an end run around the Constitution.
Horse pucky. I'm insisting that they do supersede the Constitution (at least in practice if not technically) because I don't want people pitching a false sense of security.
It was a bad deal. We should have amended both Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 and the Article VI Supremacy Clause. That was never done.
Hence, there are treaties that wildly exceed Constitutional limitations, not one has ever been thrown out by a court, and the United States has agreed to not contravene their terms upon signature alone without ANY authority for the last forty years.
Please wake up.
“...I will not consider any further amendments. It is take it or leave,...”
We’ll leave it.
Would you consider the treaties you're speaking of to be on a par with the Constitution as long as they don't usurp the delegated powers within the Constitution?
The powers they claim are so enormous as to exceed the limits of natural law. I don't see how one could claim that they were intended as anything but to be a "get around" directed at bypassing the limits of constitutionally enumerated powers to manipulate the economy for corrupt purposes.
Now don't get me wrong; I don't think it should be this way. Treaties should never be negotiated to exceed the powers granted to the government by the people; to do so should be treason. It should be possible for the SCOTUS to void a treaty upon such grounds. My concern is that one can read the Supremacy Clause and legitimately construe that once a treaty is ratified, it is the Supreme Law no matter what it says. I think that's but one reason Patrick Henry had such a cow about it.
Think of it this way: The existence of the United States was acknowledged by the Treaty of Paris. If the United States had then lost a declared war, it could only been concluded with surrender by treaty. Effectively, by ratifying the Constitution the States gave the government the power to surrender to our enemies. So why then would we not simultaneously be surrendering our government's powers to protect our rights?
Some of these treaties delegate legislative powers concerning American citizens' use of their own property to the UN, which is CLEARLY unconstitutional. In that case, the "enemy" are the treasonous bastards who created the UN (IMO)for exactly that purpose.
It was always my understanding that the reason the
Fed would never legalize Marijuana was because of
a previous Anti-Marijuana Treaty from the 1930s.
“Well, don’t let the door hit ya, where the good Lord split ya!”
“Have a nice day!”
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.