More specifically, based on his expert knowledge of the Constitution, knowledge which all patriots should have, and also his experience as Vice President and therefore president of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson had officially noted that the president and the Senate cannot use their constitutonal power to negotiate treaties as a backdoor to force US citizens to comply with foreign laws based on powers which the states have never degated to Congress via the Constitution.
"In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793."Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." --Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1812.
One of the reasons that the Founding States undoubtedly made the Constituton's Article V where treaties are concerned is the following. When the Senate needs to negotiate a point in a treaty which Congress actually has no Section 8, Article I authority to address, the Senate is required to do the following. The Senate is to comply with Article V by rallying Congress to propose to the states for ratification an amendment to the Constitution which would grant Congress the specific power that it needs to negotiate the treaty. And if the states chose to ratify the proposed amendment, then the Senate would have the constitutional authority that it needs to proceed with the treaty.
But while activist justices wrongly ignored Jefferson's words when they decided Missouri v. Holland in 1920 in Congress's favor, a case where corrupt Congress had deliberately tapped the Senate's power to negotiate a treaty in order to bypass the 10th Amendment, the Supreme Court subsequently seems to have overturned Missour v. Holland as evidenced by the following excerpt from Reid v. Covert.
"2. Insofar as Art. 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for the military trial of civilian dependents accompanying the armed forces in foreign countries, it cannot be sustained as legislation which is "necessary and proper" to carry out obligations of the United States under international agreements made with those countries, since 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 (emphasis added)." --Reid v. Covert, 1956.
And since we cannot trust Fx News to get the word out concerning Congress working with the UN as a constitutionally indefensible backdoor to take away our 2A protected gun rights, it's up to patriots to spread the word around.
You have made some good points. I think the bottom line question is: Can a Treaty with the UN or any foreign Government over ride our Constitution, even if it has been ratified by the required number in the senate?
A lot of posts seem to think that the Senate can't approve a Treaty that will nullify or change any part of the 2nd Amendment. Most feel that it would take an Amendment to the Constitution to make that type of change.
I must admit that I do not know the answer to that question, however I do feel that those that do not know the definition of a “ Natural Born Citizen” and those that passed the “obamacare” will try to do what they want, Law or no Law.
What say you?