Morris: Civilian gun ban to be signed July 27

Fox News Channel (no link) | 7/5/12

[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.

[Ratman83]

They are still looking at the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) which is a complete piece of crap, so who knows with these spineless Senators.

[Little Ray]

Obama needs 67 votes to ratify a treaty; he HAS 53. Even adding in the usual RINOs, he won’t make it to 67.

[Sudetenland]

"A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution."

Well, I would say that the Constitution in Article says quite the opposite:

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."

The supreme Law of the Land:

1. The Constitution,
2. Laws of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution
3. Treaties made or which shall be made.

BUT, since the Roberts decision, I no longer believe that the Supreme Court will protect the Constitution from the left's assault.

Until we can get rid of Roberts or one of the other liberal justices through attrition, conservatives need to avoid the Court if at all possible.

[Lady Lucky]

Didn’t mean it personally, it was indeed in the OP and as I read down thread and kept seeing “supercede” I went a little off the rails.

[skully]

I don't see anything in article VI that grants anything supremacy to the Constitution.

“...Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

I read this as saying any treaty contrary to the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land.

See post #60 for language from a SCOTUS case in the 1950’s that concurred the supremacy of the Constitution.

[PapaBear3625]

I agree with you. The part which says:

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.

Just says that the Constitution, federal law, and treaties are senior to any state laws or state constitutions. It says nothing about treaties being senior to the Constitution, or even treaties being senior to federal law.

For example, a treaty which demanded we fund some program would be null, unless the House of Representatives approved of the funding.

A special case would be the terms of a peace treaty made after the US was conquered and unconditionally surrendered, because in the case the sovereignty of the US would have been extinguished.

[longtermmemmory]

There are multiple unilateral and bilateral treaties that superceed state and federal constitutions.

These cover

Admiralty
Notaries
Seaman’s claims
Driver Licenses
Antiquities
Aviation
Trade

ALL are binding on the courts regardless of the constitution.

Just look at the recent failed internet supression attempts.

[PhatHead]

Obama needs 67 votes to ratify a treaty; he HAS 53.

No, he doesn't have even close to 53 for something like this.

[privatedrive]

The only thing that supercedes the Constitution is a corrupted Supreme Court.

[Dr. Sivana]

From the same decision cited in #60:

To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their power to the National Government, and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier. [n35]

That is the kind of whole in the wall that a John Roberts-type can drive a fleet of Peterbilt trucks through.

[PhatHead]

I agree with you.

You also agree with the Supreme Court. This issue was argued and decided 55 years ago. See my post #60.

[Little Ray]

Assuming EVERY Democrat and “Independent” is already on board (a heck of an assumption...) that brings Obama up to 63 votes, four short of ratification.

[skully]

Didn’t take it personally.

If it had been my error..I would have thanked you for pointing it out.

Hope you have good day :)

[PapaBear3625]

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.

The "the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" part means that the treaty is senior to STATE constitutions and laws. It does not make the treaty senior to the FEDERAL constitution or laws.

[PhatHead]

Assuming EVERY Democrat and “Independent” is already on board (a heck of an assumption...) that brings Obama up to 63 votes, four short of ratification.

Just last year at least 13 Democrats signed public letters in opposition, so I don't think you can assume any such thing, even for the sake of argument.

[CodeToad]

You: “Harry Reid will secretly schedule a vote, only inviting those 51 Senators among whom he can get 34 votes, “

News Report: “At 1:25 this morning, the Senate voted to defeat a Republican filibuster of the Democrats’ health care bill. “

Democrats love these “late night votes”. Happens with them fairly often.

[baddog 219]

[PhatHead]

That is utterly irrelevant. The individual right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution and no treaty can take it out, as the very sentence you quote makes clear. The United States cannot “validly make treaties” which contradict the Constitution.

[Jim Noble]

According to Morris, treaty will be rammed through by the lame duck Senate after the November election if the Democrats are still in charge.

67 votes are needed to ratify a treaty.

Treaties, of course, supercede the US Constitution

Not according to the Supreme Court.

[Sudetenland]

That may be the state of the law, but it is clear from the very words of the Constitution that treaties do not/may not supersede the Constitution.

It has been a long time since we have had a Supreme Court that has enforced the Constitution.