Obama could single-handedly nullify the 2nd Amendment

coachisright.com ^ | July 22,2012 | Doug Book, staff writer

[jmaroneps37]

When Barack Obama signs the United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty late this month, the force of his signature alone could suffice to nullify the 2nd Amendment rights of the American people.

How is this possible if a 2/3rds vote by the Senate—that is, constitutionally mandated ratification– is required before the United States may become a legal party to any treaty?

Interested Americans have been told that the Arms Trade Treaty will regulate the international trade of conventional weapons, the purported goal being prevention of arms transfers to rogue or terrorist states.

Naturally, one would think regulations intended only to manage and restrict the trade of weapons to dangerous, warlike or terror-supporting countries couldn’t possibly threaten the constitutionally protected right of American citizens to keep and bear arms.

However, in order to prevent the accumulation and export of possible contraband weapons, the Treaty mandates creation of a global arms catalogue– an international registry detailing the existence, history and ownership records of all conventional weapons.

Every sale, every transfer of a weapon within the borders of the United States would be contained in this registry. The left have dreamed of such a national gun registry for decades and this would give it to them.

How could the gun-grabbing Obama Regime impose this clearly anti-2nd Amendment, Treaty-mandated arms registration scheme on the American people without the Senate first giving its advice and consent?

“When a nation signs a treaty it is obligated to refrain from actions that would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty until such time as it makes clear its intent not to become a party to the treaty.”

This is language from Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Adopted in 1969, 111 nations have ratified

[Renegade]

I have many friends thst are LEOS but I will kill them or die trying, if they try to enforce tis Dickweeds notions.

[Elle Bee]

congress could hold him in contempt

.

[ex91B10]

Ah, no he can't.

The Kenyan must go.

[Conservative Vermont Vet]

NOT SO!!!

We went thru this not long ago re: The LOST Treaty.

SEE: Reid v. Covert

In 1957, the US Supreme Court decided that treaties cannot supersede the Constitution. (Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 (1956)) Mrs. Covert was one of two US military service wives who shot and killed their active-duty husbands while on US military bases abroad. Incredibly, the Air Force tried Mrs. Covert, and the Army tried Mrs. Smith, for murder by general court-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The services argued that international law said that military tribunals had exclusive jurisdiction of all crimes on US bases, no matter who committed them. But the Supreme Court said that only a civilian court can try a civilian, no matter where that civilian is.

Then the court made abundantly clear what the Supremacy Clause really means. At issue is whether the Constitution allows all treaties, not just “those made in pursuance” of the Constitution, to take precedence over the Constitution.

The Court emphatically said no. TO THINK OTHERWISE WOULD BE TO LET A TREATY AMEND THE CONSTITUTION OTHER THAN THROUGH THE AMENDING PROCESS IN ARTICLE V. (See 354 US 16-17.)

[Talisker]

Reid v. Covert

Thank you.

The stupidity around here sometimes makes me weep.

[redgolum]

He will sing it. Before or after the election I don’t know.

The most dangerous thing is a lame duck president and congress.

[sport]

I am not. When they get ready to take them, I suppose that they will. I will have been shot full of holes by then. I will not surrender them.

[crazydad]

Said that in an earlier thread. This is it here. Already Lautenburg or how ever you spell that name is calling for new gun laws. And this is going to be the reason Obunghole signs the treaty. IMHO

[sport]

I understand. I have watched videos on youtube of staeving Russian pows and concenreation camp inmates while Himmler and other Nazis strutting around gloating.I had a mental picture of Hillary Clinton in their place. I made a vow to myself that I would never e put in the position of the pows or camp inmates. As long as there is a chance that the light of freedom will continue to shine in the U.S., I will do what I can to keep it shining. But if worse comes to worse, I rather die on my feet fighting, than to live on my knees groveling. But that is just my thoughts. Others may feel differently.

[SatinDoll]

Bookmark

[EternalVigilance]

Aw, come on. The Republican nominee says you don't need these weapons anyhow:

"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

-- Governor Mitt Romney, upon signing permanent assault weapons ban

[rurgan]

What's wrong with liberals/democrats?

Why do they trust government bureaucrats and politicians?

These sheep are willing to give up their guns ( and ours) to the government,give the Internet to the UN, even give up their large soda drinks to the government. wtf is up with you stupid liberals out there? You would rather give up your freedom because some of some hope that you might get some government handout. Amazing. They vote for democrats who promise them a gov handout when if they would actually work hard they could make some real money instead of living in a public housing hell hole getting some food stamps . Idiots.

[combat_boots]

“Why do they trust government bureaucrats and politicians?”

Because THEY are government bureaucrats/union members/hangers-on. We’re in the old Russian commissar and payback Asian backsheesh territory with these folks. It’s not trust. It’s the business of power.

[philman_36]

“When a nation signs a treaty it is obligated to refrain from actions that would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty until such time as it makes clear its intent not to become a party to the treaty.”
He gives this paper...Unratified Treaties, Domestic Politics, and the U.S. Constitution...as his quote source.
Here is the full quote... Under contemporary treaty practice, a nation's signature of a treaty typically does not make the nation a party to the treaty. Rather, nations become parties to treaties through an act of ratification or accession, which sometimes occurs long after signature. Nevertheless, Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which many commentators regard as reflecting customary international law, provides that...[here is where his "quote" cuts in]...when a nation signs a treaty it is obligated to refrain from actions that would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty until such time as it makes clear its intent not to become a party to the treaty. Some commentators further claim that this object and purpose obligation means that a nation that has signed a treaty is prohibited either from violating the treaty altogether or from violating the treaty's core or important provisions. Attaching legal obligations to the signing of a treaty, however, poses a constitutional issue for the United States because the U.S. Constitution divides the treaty power between the President and Senate, whereas only the President and his agents are involved in the signing of treaties. This constitutional issue has broad significance because, for a variety of political and other reasons, the United States often signs but fails to ratify treaties. The constitutional issue is not eliminated by the president's authority to conclude sole executive agreements, since both constitutional structure and historical practice suggest that this authority is significantly narrower than the power of the President and Senate to jointly conclude treaties. The drafting history of Article 18, however, offers a partial solution to this difficulty, since it indicates that the object and purpose obligation was intended to prohibit only actions that would substantially undermine the parties' ability to comply with or benefit from a treaty after ratification, an obligation that has little relevance to the treaties for which signing obligations would be most constitutionally problematic.

@ Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Article 18
Obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force
A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when:
(a) it has signed the treaty or has exchanged instruments constituting the treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty; or
(b) it has expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty, pending the entry into force of the treaty and provided that such entry into force is not unduly delayed.

And the US has not ratified the Vienna Convention!

Treaties Pending in the Senate (updated as of May 18, 2012)

4. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, done at Vienna May 23, 1969, and signed by the United States on April 24, 1970 (Treaty Doc.: Ex. L, 92nd Cong., 1st Sess.); submitted to Senate November 22, 1971.

IMO this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, but that's just my opinion.

[philman_36]

The stupidity around here sometimes makes me weep.
Don't pull a Boehner yet!
See 54.

[meyer]

Molon Labe.

I'll see your 'Molon Labe' and raise you a "FMCDH".

[BuffaloJack]

Nobody’s taking my guns, unless I’m out of ammo.

[5th MEB]

I took a sacred oath in 1969 to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC. I have never been released from that oath as far as I know. That oath is just as valid to me today as it was back then. I was willing to risk my life then to protect our country, I still am.

[sport]

Thank you for your response.

[sport]

I got a feeling that you are right.