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.
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.
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.
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.
Treaties can’t be passed through reconciliation. Are there really enough RINOs willing to commit career suicide and vote for this?
Permit me to direct you to the following "BI-PARTISAN" Republi-Tard, RINO's and then tell us all that the ratification is "Highly unlikely?"
And if it were in the Constitution it wouldn’t be spelled wrong!
Have you read the Constitution? Two-thirds of the Senate must approve the treaty which makes ramming it through a “lame duck Senate” nearly impossible even with the current configuration. And treaties DO NOT supercede the Constitution.
...except that they don’t play by the rules. The Constitution, laws, the people’s will, - - none of it matters to these people.
From a practical standpoint, should anyone try, whether obama, the Senate, the freaking UN, etc., they will essentially be declaring war on We, the People, because that will be how such a "treaty" will be heard and responded to.
>>> “Always a crowd-pleaser...”
A-yep. Thankee. BMFL
“A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution”
But not if it is violation of the rest of the constit...oh, wait, we have a president and a court that thinks the constitution means whatever they want it to say.
Be sure to take note of who votes for this in Congress.
It’s not you, it’s me.
You forgot my senator, Dick Lugar.
My Grandfather always said: "They may come for my guns but first they will get my expended ammo."
Obama would NOT need 67 votes out of 100. He just needs 2/3 of those physically present at a particular moment in time.
Suppose the Senate is in session, and there are but a handful of left-wing Senators present since the Senators are all scattered at their offices or in committee hearings.
The way this is written, any treaty could be passed at any time with say 34 out 51 (a usual quorum). What about 7 out of only 10 present if they carefully time it? What about 3 out of only 3 present when the left-wingers keep a running count? How many minutes does it take to ram through a vote with no regard for "Senatorial courtesy"?
Just last year 58 Senators signed letters to President Obama opposing participation in the treaty. That total includes 13 Democrats.
“A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution. Interesting months ahead.”
It does, does it?
Primarily I picked your post to respond to in order to compliment your choice of tagline: (Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t. (M.Thatcher))
Nice - very, very nice. :o)
...but also to remind posters that treaty passage requires only a 2/3s majority AMONG THOSE PRESENT.
Considering the Constitutional and legal transgressions accumulating to the current Administration, I don’t put it past them to employ the most outrageous of shenanigans to enact this into law and then thumb their noses at the hapless GOP and citizens alike.
“Just last year 58 Senators signed letters to President Obama opposing participation in the treaty. That total includes 13 Democrats.”
That may be true, but knowing politics we must conclude that the UN has the needed mechanism to get US approval or else this would not be coming to a vote.
If your referring to the spelling error in the first line; it’s not my spelling error. I was replying to someone else. I pasted their quote. If it has a spelling error in it, I leave it. Not my job to correct other posters’ spelling.
It does no such thing. See Post #60 above.
It isn’t coming to a vote.
No, it does not.
Article VI, Clause 2 does NOT say that treaties supersede the Constitution. The Clause, in effect, says that the Constitution, Federal Law, and Treaties are the supreme law of the land, and supersede state laws and state constitutions.
The Constitution is supreme over Federal Laws and Treaties (note that the Clause refers to federal laws “made in pursuance [of the Constitution]” and treaties made “under the authority of the United States” (a treaty can’t be made under the authority of the United States if it is Unconstitutional). Simply put, treaties do not supersede the Constitution.
A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution.
According to the Constitution, no treaty may supercede the Constitution of the United States.
But if the UN wants to try to come and get them, it’s their funeral.
2/3 of senators PRESENT. They might try a parliamentary trick where they pass it at 3am when only Dems happen to be present, but that would be raw even by Dem standards.
so then fast and furious wasn’t really necessary?
Constitution? To hell with that little piece of American history.
This magic negro really is something.
Yes, of course. Harry Reid will secretly schedule a vote, only inviting those 51 Senators among whom he can get 34 votes, and the 58 Senators who've already publicly signed letters in opposition, some of whom will have to be invited to get a quorum, will not tell anybody else, or those not invited will stay home and sit on their hands instead of showing up to vote.
I have to say, this thread is an entertaining one.
Whew..that list brings back bad memories...
If true, then the balloon goes up.
Kissinger for one.
The courts for another.
Happens all the time with seamans’ claims. We have treaties which adhere to foreign jurisdiction. Shippers set those up in order to avoid the level playing field of US courts.
If true, then the balloon goes up.
Time to face the facts: The Supreme Court has been compromised.
The next bill that comes along (doesn’t even have to be relevant) will be re-written to re-define the 2nd amendment.
This could happen in the hext few weeks/months. Let’s not kid ourselves and think it won’t happen - it just did!
Then they’ll re-define the 1st amendment. With John Roberts in their pocket, they could actually do all of this before November.
Legal definitions are one thing, reality is another. We are no longer playing by the Constitution.
Obama would EASILY claim the US has “...signed onto the greatest treaty of the world’s nations, to secure our freedom from violence and the criminal international arms dealers, to help prevent wars, violence against women and children, and to give each nation the right to choose for itself if tolerance to violence will be accepted. Therefore, as Narcissist in Chief, I have issued an executive order, under the laws already passed, to curtail gun violence by adherence to this treaty. There will be those that do not like this measure of security for our families, but we must act and act now. I take this bold measure knowing there will be those in Congress who oppose it, but they only respond to big arms corporations and special interests like the NRA and not to you, as I have done with this order.
DITTO!!!!!! “Come and take them”!
It seems they have forgotten. They must have also forgotten we are being run by the most corrupt administration in American history. These criminals will do what they want, when they want, period. Only one way to deal with them. I have a feeling you know what that is.
Before you say “Sheriff Bob would NEVER do that!”, history suggests otherwise.
So stop dreaming of nice blue helmets, and realize that it would be your neighbors first. Then the US military, and then it won't matter because you will be dead or we will be in a civil war.
The FedGov is operating like Fast and Furious never got found out. They will move to ban guns soon.