Posted on 08/25/2015 9:29:07 AM PDT by rktman
Obama and the United Nations are coming for your guns. For real this time.
What’s that? You hadn’t heard? Monday’s global summit of “states parties to the Arms Trade Treaty” in Cancun was not already marked on your calendar, the August 24 start date circled in blood-red ink? It must have something to do with where you’re getting your news from.
In 2013, after nearly a decade of effort (and opposition from the Bush administration), the U.N. adopted an Arms Trade Treaty to curtail illicit sales of war weapons, including tanks, fighter jets, warships, missiles, artillery, and small arms, chiefly to keep them out of the hands of rogue governments and militant groups. But that last category of weapons riles Second Amendment activists, who are concerned that the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is part of a secret globalist agenda to winnow away their constitutional right.
(Excerpt) Read more at thetrace.org ...
If TheTripe publishes that the UN is not gun-grabbing, then they are.
The UN can gun grab all it wants. Unless their treaties are approved and ratified by our Congress they do not apply to me.
UN is the Tyrant Protection League. Otherwise viable & justified opposition will be denied effective means of doing so.
To wit: had the current UN been in effect around 1776, France would have been condemned & punished for facilitating a bunch of revolutionaries in 13 of England’s American colonies.
” Unless their treaties are approved and ratified by our Congress...” LOL! Except that old document written by a bunch of slave owning rich old white guys apparently doesn’t apply as far as the lyin’ king is concerned. “Treaty, schmeaty. I’ll do whatever I want and dare any of you racists to oppose it.” :>}
The UN can gun grab all it wants. Unless their treaties are approved and ratified by our Congress they do not apply to me.
Always disbelieve a conspiracy until their allies deny it.
If TheTripe publishes that the UN is not gun-grabbing, then they are.
BINGO!
Given our current Congress’ penchant for caving to every whim of Obama, I would not put too much faith in your Representatives/Senate. Plus, doesn’t it now take a Super Majority to nullify a treaty that the President ratifies?
I’d think a future POTUS could repudiate it, especially with a Congressional majority.
Oh, wait, this is OTrauma we are talking about.
It will NOT trump the Bill of Rights.
People like you who are waiting for a politician to provide freedom and constitutional/God given rights deserve to lose your guns.
Really we all do. Cowards should have masters.
I wondered who funded it and you saved me the trouble of looking it up. The article was simply gun grabbing made to seem like it is not gun grabbing.
Some of the language is vague and subject to interpretation by the government. Can you say executive order, ATF interpreting the treaty, and corrupt courts?
With this administration the usurping of the Constitution has been mostly at the hands of agencies such as the EPA etc. They interpret the vague laws passed by Congress and then in effect become the lawmakers. They have caused our country great harm. Obamacare is an exception as it was actually passed by congress and we were sold out by the Supreme Court who invented law out of thin air.
The Trace: What Michael Bloomberg has renamed his rectum.
I wasn’t stating what my reaction would be, but responding to a poster with a question about legal mechanics of treaties.
Note that Congress cannot approve and ratify treaties if a treaty gives Congress the power to do things that the states have never delegated to Congress, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to do.
In fact, based on his experience as vice president and president of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson had clarified that Congress cannot use its power to negotiate treaties as a backdoor to establish new powers for itself, powers not based on the limited powers which the states have delegated to Congress expressly 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 .
A more important example concerning limits on treaty powers powers comes from the Supreme Court. In fact, the Court reflected on Jefferson’s words, clarifying that Congress cannot use it’s power to negotiate treaties as a way to bypass its constitutionally limited powers.
"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.
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.