Posted on 07/23/2012 3:20:01 PM PDT by neverdem
Inside the UN, world leaders take aim at gun rights, say critics.
UNITED NATIONS – American Second Amendment rights and U.S. foreign policy interests could be directly threatened by the latest wording of a United Nations draft treaty seeking control over international trade in conventional weapons, FoxNews.com has learned.
A U.S. delegate argued against the provisions during closed-door talks Friday, but insiders close to the proceedings say UN approval of a final document by the self-imposed July 27 deadline remains likely.
The development comes just days after Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, warned there should be “no compromise” on the issue of a U.S. citizen’s right to own a firearm.
“We will not stand idly by while international organizations, whether state-based or stateless, attempt to undermine the fundamental liberties that our men and women in uniform have fought so bravely to preserve – and on which our entire American system of government is based,” LaPierre told the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).
The latest draft bars weapons transfers to “non-state actors” – which, by definition, include private citizens.
“The ATT will not limit the ability of terrorists to acquire arms." - Ted Bromund, Heritage Foundation
While treaty supporters say the provision speaks to a long-stated goal of denying weapons to terrorists, many experts warn of wider consequences.
“The ATT will not limit the ability of terrorists to acquire arms. The reason for this is simple: The UN has never defined terrorism, because some member states insist that terrorist groups like Hamas are struggling against so-called foreign occupation,” Ted Bromund, senior research fellow with the Washington-based Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, told the conference last week.
Implementation of the latest draft risks restricting U.S. foreign policy because it could limit Washington’s...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Danger ahead UN.
We already have ITAR. Leave it alone!
Earth to whoever, it can be done legally with 34.
That’s correct, it only takes 2/3 of the senate present, however;
Treaties that are not in accordance with the Constitution are considered void.
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html
No...the UN “Treaty” does NOT “Aim at Terror”!
There is no possible way this “treaty” could EVER reduce the threat of “terror”.
The ONLY possible targets are law abiding U.S. citizens!
Let’s save some money and stop paying the UN “dues”. During President Reagan’s administration we withheld funds from the UN. But they did not learn the lesson.
US Senate, Foreign Relations Committee, under the leadership of Sen Jesse Helms withheld US funding of the UN and made it stick! Time for the UN to have another learning moment.
Poppycock. If that was true the Endangered Species Act would have no teeth at all in Federal court.
Name ONE treaty that has ever been voided by the courts.
OK, now I'll name you a treaty that so WILDLY exceeds Constitutionally enumerated powers as to be laughable: The Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western Hemisphere commits all land in the United States and its entire economy to saving EVERY species, essentially claiming the power to halt natural selection in its tracks.
“Poppycock. If that was true the Endangered Species Act would have no teeth at all in Federal court.”
And what language in the Bill of rights forbids the Endangered Species Act, as bad as the legislation is?
The principal violations attendant to the are ESA pursuant to the powers required to enforce those treaties it cites from which it derives its "authority" (see USC Title 16, Section 1531), is one of limitations on enumerated powers, but it does extend to the unconstitutional taking of the use of private property, frequently.
By failing to address that you neglected to cite a treaty that has been voided, you have shown that your post was grossly in error.
“By failing to address that you neglected to cite a treaty that has been voided, you have shown that your post was grossly in error.”
Actually, there was a recent case in one of the western circuits where the EPA was ruled to have exceeded it’s constitutional authority by imposing penalties against a property owner for what I believe was digging on his land.
Also, interesting your article cites and praises the DC/Heller case as an example where the courts got it right. With over 100 million firearms owners in this country there’s no reason to believe a 2/3 treaty vote will simply cause those millions of people to just surrender their guns at the snap of a finger. The legal challenges would be overwhelming and that would include state nullification on a large scale, like we’re beginning to see with the Obamacare ruling.
With the large number of citizens involved, it’s not quite the slam dunk you make it out to be.
The treaty of course should be stopped nevertheless.
Progressives/socialists
First) try to get it in a law, if that fails
Second) go to the courts, if that fails
Third) get it in a treaty
Your link to Justia is one I’ve not seen before, and its title “Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power” is an intriguing one.
However, it seems conflicted as it lays out the various arguments. It’s not clear where there is always a majority opinion, or what the legalize means in some instances. I very much like the way the paragraph with footnote 340 ends. But is it really precedent setting? The paragraph that follows it seems to dampen that hope.
BTW, it’s not even clear what date this piece was published and when it has been updated (if it has).
What individuals might find troubling is in one of the paragraphs where it appears the court was using an early version of “compelling state interests” to violate the constitution “because we might not have much left if we don’t.” That’s the one which ends “Here a national interest of very nearly the first magnitude is involved. It can be protected only by national action in concert with that of another power. The subject-matter is only transitorily within the State and has no permanent habitat therein. But for the treaty and the statute there soon might be no birds for any powers to deal with. We see nothing in the Constitution that compels the Government to sit by while a food supply is cut off and the protectors of our forests and our crops are destroyed.”344 Maybe I overly cynical, but doesn’t it appear to contain a bit too crisis mongering, too end-of-the-worldish, to feel comfortable? And again, it’s not clear which faction wrote the opinion, and I could not follow the footnote to gain more clarity.
I wish you to presume I’m a numbskull. Heck, let state outright that I am. But just maybe I’m an influential, patriotic one. Convince me that all the opinions in this marvelous link support the notion that no treaty will be permitted to violate the constitution despite the supremacy clause.
I really want to believe that there is strong precedent to protecting our constitution, and that the treaty power cannot legitimatly be used as an inside-Washington way of circumventing the constitutional provision of needing ¾ of the states to ratify any amendments (instead of only 34 senators).
That case had nothing whatsoever to do with citation to a treaty. Worse, the case was so egregious as to be worthless as a test. I promise you: there are thousands of instances substantially like it that will stand, differing only by degree. The EPA has plenty of our money for more lawyers.
Also, interesting your article cites and praises the DC/Heller case as an example where the courts got it right.
What does that have to do with a test of a treaty?
As to the rest of your post, you completely underestimate the connivances of the courts over time (not to mention the rulings of an international secretariat) as to how the treaty will be interpreted over time, and especially as regards regulating the manufacture and distribution of ammo.
So, after all that... You have STILL not cited a single treaty that has been voided for its unconstitutional scope.
“You have STILL not cited a single treaty that has been voided for its unconstitutional scope.”
Because it’s arguable that the treaties you cited are unconstitutional to begin with. The endangered Species Act you cited for example is not a land grab per say, but an attempt by the government to regulate private usage of that land. The government can simply say that they have regulatory authority based on the vaguely worded “taking clause” of the U.S Constitution which only demands compensation if property is taken, but doesn’t address regulating when property isn’t actually seized.
Only an amendment scrapping the “takings clause” completely and replacing it with strong wording that forbids any government taking of or meddling in private property outright would clearly make those treaties unconstitutional. Otherwise, they would have to be repealed by legislation. Unfortunately as written the “taking clause” language is too vague to produce an unconstitutional ruling. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, but it’s not so cut and dry and is subject to interpretation by the courts.
The 2nd Amendment on the other hand is clearer and easier to understand, leaving the courts with no excuse except to obey it completely or be subject to state nullification.
The Convention specifies that the United States is committed to save any "species and genera of its native flora and fauna" from becoming extinct "BY ANY AGENCY WITHIN MAN'S CONTROL." It commits the government to halting all natural selection (which is physically impossible) because any such event is assignable to being "within man's control." There is absolutely no limit expressed in that commitment. And you think that scope lies within the enumerated powers of the Constitution?
Really? Unbelievable.
The endangered Species Act you cited for example is not a land grab per say, but an attempt by the government to regulate private usage of that land.
No, the ESA is means to justify and execute complete control over the use of land, effectively restricting it to no use at all. Please tell me the difference between that and a land grab, other than that the owner gets NO compensation. The reality is that, without control of the use of property by its owner, there is no such thing as private property.
The government can simply say that they have regulatory authority based on the vaguely worded “taking clause” of the U.S Constitution which only demands compensation if property is taken, but doesn’t address regulating when property isn’t actually seized.
One can deprive a use without seizing the property entirely, for which there is plenty of precedent as being equivalent to a taking.
Only an amendment scrapping the “takings clause” completely and replacing it with strong wording that forbids any government taking of or meddling in private property outright would clearly make those treaties unconstitutional.
It's clear enough already. The problem is that the government has lied about it for decades and you go along with the lies. Worse than that, the ESA effectively gives the government motive to fail to protect the asset at risk. Indeed, they routinely violate gobs of statutes in the process, particularly the economic analyses required by NEPA.
You see, this is about power, "by any agency within man's control." People with power like that don't care about Constitutionally limited and enumerated powers, and it shows.
That the ESA involves enforcing powers not specifically enumerated in Article I, Section 8, yet you defend that exercise, means you have either no understanding of the Constitution or you are willfully complicit in ignoring those limits. Take your pick.
You still have not cited a treaty that has been voided for unconstitutional scope. Are you saying that there is no provision of any treaty the enforcement of which exceeds Constitutionally enumerated powers? Can you really say that with a straight face when the government enforces terms of treaties that have not even been ratified, pursuant to another treaty we never ratified, one that asserts a treaty binding upon SIGNATURE, and not even requiring ratification. And you still claim that this is legal?
Name one treaty that has been voided for unconstitutional content. One.
Here's a clue: there isn't one. That's because the Supremacy Clause doesn't say what you think it does, dicta in Reid v. Covert notwithstanding. You're dead wrong.
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.