Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 169

Thread: Do'es UN trump US constitution?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oregon,Linn County
    Posts
    1,930

    Do'es UN trump US constitution?

    I saw this while checking on UN gun treaty any thoughts?

    Monday, November 16, 2009
    Obama revives talk of U.N. gun control

    Obama revives talk of U.N. gun control: "Arms Trade Treaty"

    George Bush wouldn't have it, and George Bolton, his Ambassador to the United Nations fought it.

    What is it?

    It's the "UN Programme of Action on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons".

    Mildly stated as a series of "Whereas" and "Therefore", and professing the right of the "individual" to possess weapons for defense, this measure is cunningly designed to provide justification for 'states' (or nations) to rigidly control the commerce in small arms and ammunition to anyone who doesn't represent a state or a nation. (See UN A/Res/63/23, and UN A/64/228, and pp. 3-5 of A/63/PV41 for example.)

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton isn't Bolton, and President Barack Obama isn't Bush. Between the two of them, Hillary and Obama are deliberately moving this nation toward the signing of a treaty which would force the United States to accept the supremacy of the United Nations to dictate National Policy in regards to the Second Amendment.

    Here are the lead paragraphs to the WND article:

    Gun rights supporters are up in arms over a pair of moves the White House made last month to reverse longstanding U.S. policy and begin negotiating a gun control treaty with the United Nations.

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first announced on Oct. 14 that the U.S. had changed its stance and would support negotiations of an Arms Trade Treaty to regulate international gun trafficking, a measure the Bush administration and, notably, former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations John Bolton opposed for years.

    Two weeks ago, in another reversal of policy, the U.S. joined a nearly unanimous 153-1 U.N. vote to adopt a resolution setting out a timetable on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, including a U.N. conference to produce a final accord in 2012.

    "Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms," Clinton said in a statement. "The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area."

    Gun rights advocates, however, are calling the reversal both a dangerous submission of America's Constitution to international governance and an attempt by the Obama administration to sneak into effect private gun control laws it couldn't pass through Congress.

    This seems to reference to the "... international transfer of arms", but in fact it would affect the ability of every American to "Keep and Bear Arms". Or to purchase, exchange, trade or give firearms to every other person or merchant.

    This isn't a Paper Tiger. You may be asking: "What's the big deal? The Second Amendment protects our rights. What we agree to in terms of International Trade has nothing to do with us."

    The problem is that the United States is close to signing an International Treaty, and this is the single move which can immediately and irredeemably counter the U.S. Constitution, or any law.


    Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution reads:

    All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

    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 Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

    In other words, if the United States (in the person of President Obama) signs this treaty, and it is ratified by Congress, then all existing laws ... up to and including the Constitution ... are over-ruled.

    Remember the words:

    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.

    That means exactly what it says.

    If we enter into a treaty with the United Nations, and that treaty is or can be interpreted as disallowing the purchase or ownership of Small Arms, then that becomes the Law of the Land and it cannot be reversed by the Constitution, State Law, or any court in America.

    This is exactly the kind of tool which any wanna-be Dictator would elect to impose his own private vision of a disarmed citizenry. In fact, I'm unclear on the process ... would it be necessary for this treaty to be ratified by Congress? Can the president sign this treaty and unilaterally impose disarmament on the strongest country on earth?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    773
    You know, the UN was formed to prevent all wars. They've done an excellent job.
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." ~ Gerald Ford

    "What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving." ~ Adrian Rogers

    Support gun control: hit your target when shooting!

    I regret my user name.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    America, and damn proud of it!
    Posts
    3,576
    What was the Supreme Court case that ruled no international treaty may supersede the United States Constitution as being the supreme law of the land?
    [QUOTE=Brady;363469]When I was a kid I did lots of things like playing with fire and torturing animals even though adults told me not to.[/QUOTE]
    The admission of a sociopathic serial killer.

    [QUOTE=Penfold;363126]No Personal attacks, insults, name calling, offensive generalizations, or labeling.[/QUOTE]
    He should practice what he preaches.

    The three duties of government: 1. Protect property 2. preserve contracts 3. provide for the rule of law.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    205
    The United States always has the option of pulling out of the United Nations. There's a lot of support for that already.

    Any attempt by the United Nations to restrict the right to bear arms in the US would be the last straw for the American electorate.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    America, and damn proud of it!
    Posts
    3,576
    Quote Originally Posted by josephdphillips View Post
    Any attempt by the United Nations to restrict the right to bear arms in the US would be the last straw for the American electorate.
    I think such a move would qualify as a recognized declaration of war.
    [QUOTE=Brady;363469]When I was a kid I did lots of things like playing with fire and torturing animals even though adults told me not to.[/QUOTE]
    The admission of a sociopathic serial killer.

    [QUOTE=Penfold;363126]No Personal attacks, insults, name calling, offensive generalizations, or labeling.[/QUOTE]
    He should practice what he preaches.

    The three duties of government: 1. Protect property 2. preserve contracts 3. provide for the rule of law.

  6. #6
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by NATO 556 View Post
    What was the Supreme Court case that ruled no international treaty may supersede the United States Constitution as being the supreme law of the land?
    Is this a quiz? How about McCulloch v. Maryland for $200.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    7,353
    Could we have something more than the musings of Wing Nut Daily?
    "They asked if I had found Jesus and I didn't even know He was missing."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    America, and damn proud of it!
    Posts
    3,576
    Quote Originally Posted by sinjin View Post
    Could we have something more than the musings of Wing Nut Daily?
    Only if you care to supply it.
    [QUOTE=Brady;363469]When I was a kid I did lots of things like playing with fire and torturing animals even though adults told me not to.[/QUOTE]
    The admission of a sociopathic serial killer.

    [QUOTE=Penfold;363126]No Personal attacks, insults, name calling, offensive generalizations, or labeling.[/QUOTE]
    He should practice what he preaches.

    The three duties of government: 1. Protect property 2. preserve contracts 3. provide for the rule of law.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,854
    Quote Originally Posted by NATO 556 View Post
    I think .....

    Do you have any evidence to support this bold assertion?
    " ... It's not as though he proved anything, he only refuted my evidence. ..." Archangel 04.01.09

    "Obama is not a brown-skinned anti-war socialist who gives away free healthcare. You're thinking of Jesus."

    “Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil.”

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oregon,Linn County
    Posts
    1,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Penfold View Post
    Do you have any evidence to support this bold assertion?
    Only what I read,only what I read.But this will get you going though.Ignatius Piazza: This Will Enrage You…

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oregon,Linn County
    Posts
    1,930
    Quote Originally Posted by josephdphillips View Post
    The United States always has the option of pulling out of the United Nations. There's a lot of support for that already.

    Any attempt by the United Nations to restrict the right to bear arms in the US would be the last straw for the American electorate.
    Sure...if the powers that are choose to.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    7,353
    Quote Originally Posted by zsu2357 View Post
    I saw this while checking on UN gun treaty any thoughts?
    It's nonsense.

    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.

    In other words, if the United States (in the person of President Obama) signs this treaty, and it is ratified by Congress, then all existing laws ... up to and including the Constitution ... are over-ruled.
    Wrong. All treaties must be "in pursuance" of the Constitution.

    Remember the words:

    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.

    That means exactly what it says.

    If we enter into a treaty with the United Nations, and that treaty is or can be interpreted as disallowing the purchase or ownership of Small Arms, then that becomes the Law of the Land and it cannot be reversed by the Constitution, State Law, or any court in America.
    Wrong. No treaty can abrogate any part of the Constitution.

    This is exactly the kind of tool which any wanna-be Dictator would elect to impose his own private vision of a disarmed citizenry. In fact, I'm unclear on the process ... would it be necessary for this treaty to be ratified by Congress? Can the president sign this treaty and unilaterally impose disarmament on the strongest country on earth?
    No.

    WND is a menace.
    "They asked if I had found Jesus and I didn't even know He was missing."

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oregon,Linn County
    Posts
    1,930

  14. #14
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Sinjin is correct. NO TREATY can trump the US Constitution. Since the SCOTUS just recently ruled that the Second was an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution, no treaty can abrogate it.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Fairview Park, Ohio
    Posts
    2,023
    Personally, I wouldn't trust you guys as far as I could throw the UN building itself. The Obama Clinton administration could possibly give away just as much of our Constitutionally recognized as Inalienable Right as possible. It then becomes a matter of interpretation of what is permissible.

    Possible licensing and registration with massively tough requirements for both. Confiscate everything they believe to be unauthorized. An assault weapons ban and a International registry, just for starters.

    Maybe they would push for and sign a UN Legally Binding treaty that the Supreme Court would later overturn. It may not be in force here, but then countries like Uganda and Zimbabwe could push for UN sanctions until we comply. Just a few thoughts to ponder!
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." -- Patrick Henry

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •