Posted on 02/05/2013 6:04:56 PM PST by longtermmemmory
http://www.dickmorris.com/obamas-hidden-gun-strategy-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
This treaty if signed would have the force of law UNTIL the SENATE affirmativly voted it down. Pursuant to another treaty a treaty signed by the US but not acted by the senate is as if it is ratified. (really)
Thus reid can kabuki dance to be pro second and then stonewall to prevent the treaty from being rejected.
REMEMBER A TREATY BYPASSES THE CONSTITUTION. It would render the second amendment meaningless.
It also cuts the House of Representatives totally out of the representative process.
Remember to keep this on the radar. Obama Admin. announce they were reopening negotiations the day after the election and it is up again in MARCH.
Again this UN treaty would trump the second amendment.
“REMEMBER A TREATY BYPASSES THE CONSTITUTION. It would render the second amendment meaningless.”
Not sure this is totally correct. While true that the process could happen as outlined, I don’t believe that puts the issue beyond the scope of the courts, nor beyond the Constitution.
No doubt the fine legal minds here on FR will enlighten us.
NONSENSE!
The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur"
What does this treaty in effect mean for us? I am not clear on that. So I shoot an intruder in my house and then I get hauled off to jail or something because I am not supposed to own a gun?
Only if the US surrenders it’s sovereignty. If 0bama does it, it’s TREASON, a capital offense!
I think the toe sucker may be right. Barry only has support in the Senate and so that has to be the avenue of attack.
Bogus. Morris is a fear-peddler. Our side is buying so he’s selling. As to law, no basis for the fear, at least not at the level of individual rights. See Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), available at
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/354-001a.htm
From the summary at the beginning:
“...no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution”
and especially as pertains to individual rights, as from here a little further in:
“...constitutional protections for the individual were designed to restrict the United States Government when it acts outside of this country, as well as here at home.”
Therefore, combined with Heller, which finds 2A rights to be individual, no treaty of any design can abrogate those rights. Period.
Our only real enemy is lawlessness, and the man who in our time best represents the evolution of that primordial evil.
Key word here is present. Full 2/3 is not required.
Fox dumped Morris, now if they’d only shit can Rove too.
It is correct, that is why I posted it.
A treaty would circumvent the constitution.
Back in the cold war days, Kissinger discussed it as a means of global governance to bypass the constitution and american voters.
that has nothing to do with the facts of the situation.
There IS a small arms treaty at the UN and Hillary was going to sign it, and John Kerry (the fool) will sign it.
There apparently is no reservation for constitutional protection as it relates to the second amendment of the US OR senate ratification reservation.
Either way, we have a exective regime which is acting and MSM enabled ROYAL president. (see the kings word is law)
Those in congress better wake up or their personal power will be gone faster than shrimp at a DC cocktail party.
International Legal Authorities
Treaties are governed by international law and are a primary source of international law. Treaties play an important role in the orderly conduct of relations among states, particularly following World War II. In order for treaties to perform this role, internationally recognized rules concerning treaties have been developed.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, concluded at Vienna on May 23, 1969 (VCLT), sets forth rules concerning the making, operation, suspension, and termination of treaties. The VCLT opened for signature in Vienna in May 1969, and it entered into force on January 27, 1980. Currently, over 90 countries have signed or acceded to the VCLT.
The VCLT was signed for the United States on April 24, 1970, and President Nixon transmitted the treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification on November 22, 1971. The VCLT remains before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The United States has not ratified the VCLT and thus is not legally bound by its provisions. Nevertheless, the United States follows many of the rules in the VCLT in the conduct of its day-to-day work on treaties.
States enter into treaties not only with other states, but also with other subjects of international law (in particular, international organizations). International organizations enter into treaties with each other. These treaties are not covered by the VCLT, but are the subject of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations, 1986 (VCLTSIO). This treaty is not yet in force, although many of its provisions are based on those in the VCLT and have been adapted for international organizations.
_____
http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/authorities/international/
___
AND
__ __
The foremost example of this interpretation is Missouri v. Holland.326 There, the United States and Great Britain had entered into a treaty for the protection of migratory birds,327 and Congress had enacted legislation pursuant to the treaty to effectuate it.328 The State objected that such regulation was reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment and that the statute infringed on this reservation, pointing to lower court decisions voiding an earlier act not based on a treaty.329 Noting that treaties “are declared the supreme law of the land,” Justice Holmes for the Court said: “If the treaty is valid there can be no dispute about the validity of the statute under Article I, § 8, as a necessary and proper means to execute the powers of the Government.”330 “It is obvious,” he continued, “that there may be matters of the sharpest exigency for the national well being that an act of Congress could not deal with but that a treaty followed by such an act could, and it is not lightly to be assumed that, in matters requiring national action, ‘a power which must belong to and somewhere reside in every civilized government’ is not to be found.”331 Since the treaty and thus the statute dealt with a matter of national and international concern, the treaty was proper and the statute was one “necessary and proper” to effectuate the treaty.
___
http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-2/18-treaties-as-law-of-the-land.html
__ _ __ __
So there we have it. Congress can enact legislation which effectuates the treaty without necessarily adopting the treaty and thus, via treaty, circumvent the second amendment.
remember this will require an inventory of arms and owners. full on registration.
Also consider, the house RINOs are pushing for stiffer trafficing laws which dovetail with this alleged treaty’s reason. IOW useful idiots ride again.
It is not correct. See Reid v Covert mentioned above in my post #8. There is unresolved debate within the legal community over whether non-individual rights (as in 10th Amendment per Holland) are subject to contra-constitutional provisions of treaties, but the protected constitutional status of individual rights is settled law. As Heller has made it clear the Second Amendment is an individual right, it is not subject to modification by treaty. We have many real threats arrayed against us. This is not one of them.
Please see my posts at 8 and 14. There may be indirect ways to use treaty arrangements to harm weapons logistics, but it is settled law that no branch of our government may extend its own power to a point where it directly infringes on constitutionally guaranteed individual rights. It is fearmongering and misdirection for Morris to say otherwise, not to mention a nice little profit center for him also. We need to focus, IMHO, on the local battles. That’s where this whole thing will be won or lost.
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.