Exactly. They can pass all the laws they want. Let them waste their time. When the rubber meets the road, their little laws won't mean jack and they won't do diddley.
"And y'all can take that to the bank."
Posted on 03/21/2013 7:52:05 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
Bureaucrats from 150 nations are ramping up efforts to impose gun control through international pact. Here in the United States, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has become the vehicle to drive an agenda that is deeply controversial because once a treaty is ratified by the Senate, it becomes the supreme law of the land.
Last week, Secretary of State John F. Kerry — no friend of the Second Amendment — announced support for the treaty, which calls for international regulations on firearms, including personal firearms as well as military weapons. During the presidential campaign, President Obama was evasive about his position on the treaty. Now that he has fully “evolved” on the Second Amendment, he has the “flexibility” of not having to face voters again, and is pushing for the treaty.
There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about what’s being cooked up in Turtle Bay. Proponents say the treaty is only meant to crack down on illegal gun-smuggling, and the only people who ought to be concerned are military strongmen looking for a good deal on black-market rocket launchers. Of course, there’s more to the story. The exact wording of the agreement, and more importantly, how vague passages can be interpreted and twisted by the courts, will determine what the treaty actually means. It could, for example, force America to implement a national gun-registration scheme, ban importation of weapons and impose burdensome regulations on transfers.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Exceeding constitutional limits is not the same as abrogating individual constitutional rights. The burden of proof is to show one treaty that ever successfully made a direct attack on a fundamental individual right recognized as such by the Constitution. If you know if such a case, I would be interested to hear of it. And Covert, as I recall, did not pull treaty inferiority out of thin air. Inartful distinctions between dicta and holding have led to some unpleasant surprises when attempted in legal practice. However, to be fair to you, I will review it and get back to you. I am presently being held captive by a kitchen remodeling project and don’t have immediate access to my usual research tools. :)
Stay out of my gun rights, I need my gun and permit, my son’s killer only served 14.5 yrs of his plea bargained sentence, socio path had threaten to kill any who testified against him, well I forced him to max out his “gooh” err bad behavior time. He is now free to kill again. Thank God I am changing counties and getting out of rat infested criminal loving Memphis!
You are correct: All treaties that are approved by 2/3rds vote in the Senate are still subject to constitutional limitations.
States do not ratify treaties; they ratify amendments to the Constitution.
Highly unlikely. The treaty requires the approval of 2/3rds of the Senate at a time when Harry Reid can't, by his own admission, get 40 votes for an "assault" weapon ban.
Can you please remind me how this administration follows Constitutional limitations?
That’s right. Thanks.
[[This is an impeachable offense, attempting to bind US citizen to laws that they, through congress, have explicitly rejected.]]
Impreach a black president? Not goign to happen- no matter what he does- He could order wmd’s on his own people and the msm would spin it so that the citizens felt it was necessary and acceptable-
Small repair.
"We" are NOT signing them. Traitors and prospective tyrants are signing them. Time to prepare to exercise the true meaning of the second amendment.
Exactly. They can pass all the laws they want. Let them waste their time. When the rubber meets the road, their little laws won't mean jack and they won't do diddley.
"And y'all can take that to the bank."
Allow me to repeat myself:
Article 2, section 2, paragraph 2 of The Constitution says, regarding Presidential powers: “He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...”
The operative word there is “present.” Joe Biden is President of the Senate. He could call a special session at 3:00 am at which only Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, and selected other gun-control die-hards would be invited. The treaty would then be approved unanimously and we would be screwed... again.
So.... after Obozo signs it and it goes into effect.. Can we march on DC and burn it down?
We kind of want to anyway for all the OTHER crap they are doing. We running out of camel on which to pile straws...
Yes, and I can’t believe there will be 67 senators having suicidal thoughts all at the same time. It will never be ratified unless Congress thinks it can rule over us from a foreign land.
And your emphasis simply shows that treaties and federal laws along with our Constitution are the supreme laws of the land and trump state constitutions and laws.
The real question is, do treaties trump our National Constitution? Up until now, the answer would be no, but I think that SCOTUS late last year accepted a case that will answer this question.
We only lose them if we give them up.
I will not comply. Even if it’s just me against 6 billion of you... You can only kill me once.
I’d say they’d be screwed. I have no doubt they will try...
I also have no doubt that sparking off CWII will happen soon after.
Easily done. Consider the Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western Hemisphere. That treaty is cited in Title XVI, Section 1531 as the source of authority for the Endangered Species Act.
If you are going to assert that the ESA has not been used to violate individual rights, this conversation is done.
[[Highly unlikely. The treaty requires the approval of 2/3rds of the Senate at a time when Harry Reid can’t, by his own admission, get 40 votes for an “assault” weapon ban.]]
The supreme court, and specifically john traitor roberts- gave prsidents unprecidented power to violate anythign they like by claiming that it is not the court’s job to protect hte citizensw from ‘their own bad choices’ (DESPITE THE FACT that the supreme court rules all the time to do just that)- The supreme court gave it’s blessings to thsi administ to violate whatevwer the hell it feels liek violating- knowing full well that any violations will NOT be called into question because the mainstream media will NOT allow the admin to suffer for it’s actiosn one iota-
I knowe you want ot beleive i nthe ‘law’ and so do I- but traitor roberts slit hte throat of America by refusing to uphold his oath of office
Gun yes, but the permit requirement is an illegal infringement upon your second amendment rights.
I am sorry for your loss. Not having walked in your shoes I cannot say how I would react to the murderer's release, but I suspect that I might do a bit of hunting in preemptive self-defense.
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.