Skip to comments.Morris: Civilian gun ban to be signed July 27
Posted on 07/05/2012 5:46:45 AM PDT by pabianice
Dick Morris now on Fox. Morris says the UN Gun Ban Treaty is scheduled to be signed by Obama's U.S. ambassador to the UN on July 27. According to Morris, treaty will be rammed through by the lame duck Senate after the November election if the Democrats are still in charge. A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution. Interesting months ahead.
Correction: the Dems will still run the Senate during the lame duck session regardless of who wins the 2012 election.
“A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution.”
—Interesting months ahead.—
Hey! That’s MY line!
A Gun ban?
No, more like a penalty. You will be taxed ..... so that it is not possible for private citizens to own them.
Just ask the Coal Industry.
The definition of “unalienable” still stands.
The reality of “unalienable rights” still stands.
This will be like trying to outlaw gravity.
Those trying to enforce it will face the reality of it.
No treaty which violates the Bill of Rights has any validity in America and anyone complicit in attempting to enforce such a treaty should be taught first hand about the purpose of the Second Amendment.
The Democrats have ceased to be anything other than Communists. This will be just another example. The real question is how many “Americans” are there like this?
Than the American people will try them for treason themselves.
>>anyone complicit in attempting to enforce such a treaty should be taught first hand about the purpose of the Second Amendment.<<
No it doesn't, not if its provisions clash with any of its provisions or amendments.
1) A treaty does not trump the US Constitution. If so, the entire Constitution could be scrapped by a treaty.
2) There are not enough votes in the Senate to pass this. It requires 2/3 and and that means roughly 67 senators have to vote for it and that is highly unlikely.
We may have to surround the U.N. first and take care of business, then on to the Capitol and WH.
If they do this, they might as well give Romney the keys to the White House.
I’m all for the Obamites to charge full speed ahead with this in July.
Go for it and Godspeed to you!
Its a big winner!!
An end run around the Constitution? Who’da thunk it? Oh wait...
How are our Marxist leaders going to enforce it? Blue helmaets make excellent targets, after all...
Collecting all those guns will be an interesting challenge for the blue helmeted brownshirts.
I’ll be handing mine over “bullet first”. Except the shotgun, which I’ll hand over “buckshot first”.
There are fates worse than death.
These guys look like they are operating as if they will not be in power after this year.
Just an observation....
Where in the Constitution does it say that??
I know it authorizes that Congress can approve treaties, but where does it say that sovereignty, or the Bill of Rights is given up to one??
I thought in Bush vs Texas, SCOTUS confirmed that the Constitution had supremacy over treaties.
Well a little research confirms that treaties are not binding on us if they conflict with the Constitution. In other words, treaties DO NOT superceded U S Constitution. See e.g.
Our problem is only a 5-4 majority of court rules that 2nd Amendment is a personal right of liberty. More Obama appointments and even maybe the turned-Roberts may upset the apple cart.
I'll bet most Native Americans will disagree with that statement.
A portion of leftists have even seen the danger of government disarming the citizens.
They come to my door to take away my guns, they had better be ready. Lock and load!
It only takes a couple of Senators beholding to the NRA to defeat this. Indeed, passing such a treaty would destroy more than a dozen Senate careers in ‘14 and ‘16.
Members of the World’s Most Exclusive Club like their membership more than any given vote or ideology. Far more.
It’s good to be a king.
I think this is mindless Morris speculation. No way there are enough Senate votes for this.
Why not? They already learned that Conservatives will not take to the streets and fight when obamacare was rammed down their throats. Why not a gun ban “treaty”? Sooner or later, probably when it is too late, Conservatives will realize that they have two choices. They are:1. Take a stand and fight- die like men. 2. Be slaughtered as slaves.
It will be a personal decision but it will be the only one left. As those who fought the Japs in World War II learned, surrender is not an option.
What are you guys worried about? Harry Reid’s on our side - right?
Where is that pic of the bullet-riddled blue helmet?
Last time I checked it required 2/3 of the Senate to vote to ratify a treaty. I know that sometimes they try some BS where the president makes an "agreement" rather than a "treaty" like NAFTA, but this is an actual treaty. Will the Republicans vote for it or not? I hope so but I never bet against their spinelessness.
Text thereof? Link?
The hysteria seems wanton & baseless.
The text of the bill is rarely referenced by those hyperventilating over it; methinks they haven’t read it.
The Congress needs enough votes to pass it that passage is improbable.
No treaty “supersedes” the Constitution.
Outright prohibition on ownership would, of course, prove...problematic.
At worst, such a treaty would reduce international trade therein. American manufacturers would pick up the slack.
(I’m not defending the UN. Just saying those screaming “Congress is gonna ban guns by shredding the Constitution!” know little of what they speak.)
I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said. “We must all stick together or surely we will all hang together”.
Don’t try to do it alone.
The ones coming after your guns will not be alone.
“Those trying to enforce it will face the reality of it”.
So will the above be before or after the impeachment of the President for attempting to destroy that which he is by sacred oath, bound to protect?
>>A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution.<<
No it doesn’t.
>>> I thought in Bush vs Texas, SCOTUS confirmed that the Constitution had supremacy over treaties.
Don’t forget that we learned just last week that conservatives no longer have a majority on the bench.
If Roberts will cave on healthcare, he will cave on anything.
Indeed, I could heat my home with piles of useless treaties... “until the stone melts” pfftttt
Better not take anything for granted in this day & age of up is down, down is up, right is wrong & wrong is right. Start calling, emailing, visiting Senators NOW. A vote for this is a vote to go home. Period.
Good observation. One problem. If they are acting like this knowing they wont be in power after..why are they doing it? The new congress will simply reverse course.
They think they WILL be in power after the new election. They intend on a complete take over.
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Some argue that Article VI says it. I haven't checked the Federalist Papers or other contemporary writings to see the founders' actual interpretation of this confusingly worded article.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
I would argue that any treaty in violation of the Constitution fails to meet the "under the Authority of the United States" requirement and is therefore invalid. But then on the other hand I thought that Chief Justice Roberts would follow the Constitution with Obamacare, so what do I know about Constitutional law.
Republican votes would be needed to pass he treaty.
"We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."
Put nothing past any gathering of self-serving insulated liberal B’tards.
Morris may be a blowhard but he does understand the bizarre mechanizations of Washington.
I have a dream: A fugitive Obama cowering in a hut in Kenya picking lice out of his filth caked hair waiting for the new US Administration authorities to come and arrest him for crimes against the American people.
Wow! So the 2014 Population Reduction Treaty, in which all countries promise to 'liquidate' eighty-percent of their population, would be okay? It wouldn't violate the Constitutional protection to life?
“The hysteria seems wanton & baseless.”
Of course, it’s Dick Morris.
That’s idiotic. It takes a two-thirds vote to ratify a treaty and even in the current Senate, they could not come close to even a bare majority to ratify something like that, much less 67 votes.