Skip to comments.Kerry Sees UN Treaty as End Run Around Second Amendment
Posted on 03/24/2013 10:35:13 AM PDT by John Semmens
Secretary of State John Kerry touted the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) as the perfect solution for bypassing the objections of gun zealots citing the Constitutions Second Amendment as a bar to gun control.
Even if we accept the notion that the Second Amendment prohibits the Government from disarming the population, the Constitution provides an alternative method for accomplishing this objective, Kerry asserted. The Constitutions Article VI says that treaties made by the US Government are the supreme law of the landanything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
All we need to do is for the President to sign and get two-thirds of the Senate to consent to a treaty to ban private possession of firearms and there wouldnt be anything the opponents of gun-control could do about it, Kerry bragged. We wouldnt need three-fourths of the states to acquiesce in amending the Constitution. State or local sheriffs couldnt refuse to enforce gun control without running afoul of the penalties specified in the treaty. Its the ideal checkmate for Americans who bitterly cling to their guns.
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news/semi-satire posts you can find them at...
You had me going for a couple of seconds before I realized it was satire.
......there wouldnt be anything the opponents of gun-control could do about it......
My thoughts were “Oh, Yeah!”
He's not fit to collect dog cra* from the backyard.
It says its satire but it really is not. The UN has been the democrats hopey changy end run around the Constition for a long time.
Unfortunately, “satire” is becoming the real thing. That is why it is becoming so hard to distinguish satire from reality!
It is amazing that Obama has hired every dimwit, numbskull and genuine leftist imbecile into his administration.
John Kerry is one of the most prominent of these nitwits and one of the most egregious.
Actually, there is a somewhat paranoid group of righties out there pushing this exact scenario.
However, the Supreme Court has made it very clear that a treaty cannot be used to override the Constitution, as is of course obvious on its face to anyone but an idiot.
According to SCOTUS, the order of authority is as follows.
Laws and treaties of the US
That said could the UN Treaty trump state laws on say concealed carry?
I don’t think so, because the 2nd trumps treaties.
But then the 2nd is not usually construed as requiring any particular policy with regard to concealed carry.
I suspect that treaties are subject to the same requirement as federal laws, that they be “made in pursuance ... of” the Constitution.
While I don’t know if it’s every been done, I don’t see why a treaty can’t be declared unconstitutional. Treaties are supposed to govern relations between states, so a treaty intended to do an end run around the Constitution would arguably be unconstitutional.
But who knows what SCOTUS will do? Especially after Dear Leader adds another couple justices.
Not only no, but eff no!
Arrrrrggghhh! You got me again. Good stuff.
When I see the word Kerry, I believe anything written after the word and that’s his fault, a result of his past. John Kerry is exactly like Obama and will do or say anything to belittle or destroy America, will lie unceasingly, and is a narcissistic self lover, so yes I fell for John’s satire again lol.
I realize this is satire! But I could be wrong about the following thought:
If it is the real thing, the treaty made by the U.S. has to be ratified by 2/3 of the States before becoming valid and still be under the Constitution!
They won’t be able to get 2/3 of the states to agree!
Nothing to worry about! Eh?
Satire maybe but see tag line
It’s not satire if it’s really true. . . .
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.