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.
Says who?
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.
I've yet to see any of Morris' predictions come true.
A seemingly innocuous gun bill will be decided by SCOTUS to re-define the meaning of the second amendment.
Only the bad guys and the government will have weapons.
We must stop the madness.
“We must all stick together or surely we will all hang Seperatly” There that’s better.
Toe-sucker Speaks.
OK Everybody settle down. FactCheck says we’ve got nothing to worry about > http://factcheck.org/2012/06/still-no-international-gun-ban-treaty/
The Clinton administration signed the Kyoto climate change treaty in 1997. A resolution opposing it was passed in the U.S. Senate by a 95-0 margin, so it was never formally submitted for ratification.
That's the way this would work, too. If there isn't any chance to get the 67 votes needed to ratify the treaty in the U.S. Senate, it's unlikely any Senator would want to be on the record as having supported it.
It would be interesting to see a march on Washington D.C. by both Democrat and Republican members of the polity over something like this. My bet is that they would find they have much more in common than with the ‘elites’ of the Federal Government.
On the other hand I think that articles like this and the potential actions of the Regime, Congress and the courts are just priming the pump for CWII.
I am so surprised at the comments that this can't happen because of the Constitution of the U.S..... Where have you been for the last few weeks? Have you seen what this Dear Leader and his democratic-Marxist minions have done to the most important document in the world? The Constitution means nothing to these people. They have found a way around it. Make it a tax. Make that tax so exspensive and we can't own them anymore.....And we will sit on our hands.
Given that this would take 2/3 of Senate to be ratified, the only way I could see this happening after November is if they get the cooperation of Senators who have been unseated by the Tea Party, plus retiring GOP Senators.
Well, "some argued" that before the Supreme Court and lost that argument 55 years ago. See Reid v. Covert, 1957. Here is the pertinent paragraph (emphasis mine):
There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.So, aside from the fact that it would be completely impossible for such a treaty to be ratified (it requires a 2/3 vote,) it would be irrelevant to American gun rights.
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.