Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

UN seeks Arms Trade Treaty in tough talks
Deutsche Welle ^ | 27.03.2013 | msh/jr (AFP, AP, dpa, Reuters)

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 UN’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: armstrade; banglist; guncontrol; kerry; liberalagenda; secondamendment; tyranny; un; waronliberty; youwillnotdisarmus

1 posted on 03/27/2013 7:11:21 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
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 UN's New York headquarters.

.

2 posted on 03/27/2013 7:50:40 PM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
"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. …"

The NRA should learn more about that and also begin opposing bills like SB197 in Colorado, but it doesn't have the manliness to oppose feminist incremental attacks against the Second Amendment.


"This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty" (Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17).

Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power
Justia.com
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html

Excerpt:
“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
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/Treaties.htm

Treaties

Curtis W. Caine, MD
Hacienda Publishing

[Excerpt:]

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.



3 posted on 03/27/2013 9:04:41 PM PDT by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop; philman_36
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!

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.

  1. There are treaties that have been on the books for over fifty years that so plainly exceed the limits of the government's enumerated powers that it isn't worth the argument.
  2. There are laws that cite those treaties as the source of their authority. Why would they do that if they were otherwise Constitutional?
  3. Those laws have been used to deprive the people of their unalienable rights to takings of property without just compensation.
  4. Pursuant to said provisions, treaties have been ratified with no committee vote and no record of a quorum.
  5. The language of the Supremacy Clause can be read two ways, simply because the commas therein render it so. This was, in my judgment a deliberate act.
  6. The agent in charge of slipping this into the language along with the bogus matter of treaty ratification was Hamilton. He plainly lied about it in Federalist 75.
  7. Hamilton claimed it was among the most discussed elements of the Federal Convention. It is false. There was virtually NO discussion of the treaty power.
  8. In my estimation, the reason the language was there was pursuant to the demands of our lenders, so that the government could have the funds to defend the country from reconquest.

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.

4 posted on 03/28/2013 7:21:27 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

“...I will not consider any further amendments. It is ‘take it or leave’,”...”

We’ll leave it.


5 posted on 03/28/2013 3:52:31 PM PDT by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; familyop
I'm insisting that they do supersede the Constitution...

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?

6 posted on 03/28/2013 6:08:00 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infay. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
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.

7 posted on 03/28/2013 6:50:44 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

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.


8 posted on 03/29/2013 4:47:15 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai; All

“Well, don’t let the door hit ya, where the good Lord split ya!”

“Have a nice day!”


9 posted on 03/30/2013 5:11:07 AM PDT by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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