U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms

[Moose-Knuckle]

Good read. . .

http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/

[Iraqgunz]

I have been out of school for about 25 years or so, so someone correct me if I am wrong. This so-called treaty has to be approved by the full senate.

As I remember the Constitution of the United States rules above any treaties and those treaties cannot be in contravention to the constitution. That being the case if it doesn't pass the smell test then it would null and void. I would love to hear what some of our scholars have to say.

[Moose-Knuckle]

This so-called treaty has to be approved by the full senate.

From page 2 of the article.

In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.

With our Constitution it's high time that "We The People" need to send the UN packing.

[Heavy Metal]

I have been out of school for about 25 years or so, so someone correct me if I am wrong. This so-called treaty has to be approved by the full senate.

As I remember the Constitution of the United States rules above any treaties and those treaties cannot be in contravention to the constitution. That being the case if it doesn't pass the smell test then it would null and void. I would love to hear what some of our scholars have to say.

Takes 67 votes to ratify a treaty IG.

[Gutshot John]

The President actually ratifies a treaty by his signature but it has to pass through the Senate for approval...

With a 2/3rds majority vote (i.e 67 votes...beyond veto proof). 66 out of 100 can vote for it and it still fails.

Most treaties are NOT ratified.

I've got a $100 bucks that says it ain't gonna happen.

[tracker722]

********************************************

[chadbag]

Clinton can push to have the Senate ratify but that does not mean it is going to happen.

----

With regards to treaties, some people claim that treaties are higher than (or equal to and not superseded by) the Constitution based on Article VI

"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 say hogwash but this thinking has a lot of followers.

[Iraqgunz]

Thanks for the refresher in civics. I had a feeling I was somewhere on the right track. I also predict it will die a fiery death and it would political suicide for Congresscritters.

BTW- It's "martial law" not marshal.

[Abraxas]

The President actually ratifies a treaty by his signature but it has to pass through the Senate for approval...

With a 2/3rds majority vote (i.e 67 votes...beyond veto proof). 66 out of 100 can vote for it and it still fails.

Most treaties are NOT ratified.

I've got a $100 bucks that says it ain't gonna happen.
While I agree, I never underestimate our Senate and Representatives ability or willingness to sell out our nation.

[Gutshot John]

I.G., you are correct in that the Senate has to ratify any treaty presented to it, and that it must meet the Constitutional test. However, one cannot discount how the Senate may vote on such a proposal, considering The Big O's less-than-favorable standing overseas. The Senate could pass such a treaty to boost his "credibility" in an effort to show him as a one-world leader.

Just because something is theoretically possible doesn't mean it's likely. You'd have to convince more than a dozen republicans, who are in no mood to give the President any kind of victory, to go against their party and the nation mood to pass this treaty. It may garner 1 or 2 republicans but no more than that.


Also, what would stop O from packing the Supreme Court the way F.D.R. threatened to do, (by adding seats favorable to his position), in order to get a treaty like that ratified?

What are you talking about?

Even though he has the constitutional power to appoint a vacancy, FDR's court packing scheme failed. The courts have no power over treaties and the President has no power to pack the Senate.

Let's keep this discussion within the realm of reality.


Another point to consider, is that Marshal Law would have to be declared in order to suspend civil rights for total confiscation. Not meaning to drag L.E. into this in fear of getting the thread locked, but I don't know of any southern officer willing to do that. Besides, the turmoil that would create would just invite the U.N. to take action, (blue helmets in your yard, anyone?)

You mean martial law? The rest of the above statement is goofball.

[Gutshot John]

While I agree, I never underestimate our Senate and Representatives ability or willingness to sell out our nation.

Cool...I've got a $100 right here? Takers? :)

[VooDoo6Actual]

There's a lot of things that have happened recently that I would have thought were not probable or plausible to happen & did....

[Heavy Metal]

Cool...I've got a $100 right here? Takers? :)

Hell, I will back it with another $100.

[Gutshot John]

Hell, I will back it with another $100.

Dude I'd settle for a pair of your tactical wellies.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

This is why the Presidency and SCOTUS are so important, especially SCOTUS. We all know that the treaty would violate the 2nd, but with attrition they can put enough Dem appointees on the court, and viola- they either void the right, or say that the Treaty actually doesn't violate it. Recent decisions make it harder, but corrupt regime protection treaties like this for some reason make liberals weak in the knees.

[Abraxas]

Cool...I've got a $100 right here? Takers? :)

Not me, since I think it will not happen. I just don't rule anything out;)

[tracker722]

***********************************

[Heavy Metal]

Dude I'd settle for a pair of your tactical wellies.

Don't make fun of the Hog-Sloppin' boots. What happens at South Hill, stays at South Hill. And those were Cabelas brand straight from Wheeling, WV.

Plus, I am not betting you, I am doubling your bet! 67 votes against the NRA for a wet dream UN gun ban? Snowball, meet Hell.

[Gutshot John]

I was so NOT making fun of your boots.

Those were awesome.

[Heavy Metal]

Hey, it beat cleaning that nasty, red clay piedmont mud off of my good leather. That stuff gets on gear, it doesn't come out easy.

[Belmont31R]

This is why the Presidency and SCOTUS are so important, especially SCOTUS. We all know that the treaty would violate the 2nd, but with attrition they can put enough Dem appointees on the court, and viola- they either void the right, or say that the Treaty actually doesn't violate it. Recent decisions make it harder, but corrupt regime protection treaties like this for some reason make liberals weak in the knees.



Took 15 posts before someone got it.


When you have a liberal dominated court the smell test is their version of the second which says citizens don't have the right to own guns. Read the minority opinions in Heller, and McDonald. They absolutely do not think there are any protections, and a UN Treaty would 100% pass their test.


At this point we are one stroke or heart attack away from having the SC flip flop. Then all bets are off. You will see them go after causes they have not been able to in a long time, and get lots of precedence for all sorts of causes.

[Honu]

I never thought obama would be elected ?
never thought health care would pass ?
lots of things I never thought happening so these days ???? ya never know
that said I cant see it happening but refer to my first two :)

bizarre stuff these days for sure

[Alex V]

I never thought obama would be elected ?
never thought health care would pass ?
lots of things I never thought happening so these days ???? ya never know
that said I cant see it happening but refer to my first two :)

bizarre stuff these days for sure

Soooo what would we all do if this did pass? :jester:

[PaulL]

Soooo what would we all do if this did pass? :jester:

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c250/truthseeker1106/Smilies/firethenkick-1.gif

[Gutshot John]

SCOTUS has no say on a treaty that hasn't been approved by the Senate nor ratified by the President.

You could put 9 democrats on the court, and if you don't have 67 democratic senators it isn't going anywhere. If 67 senators and the President vote and ratify the treaty, SCOTUS is an irrelevant afterthought.

If it ain't law...it's a moot point...literally.

Saying that SCOTUS and the Presidency are "so important" while overlooking the role of Congress is like saying the handlebars and chain are the most important parts of a bicycle while overlooking the tires.

[Belmont31R]

SCOTUS has no say on a treaty that hasn't been approved by the Senate nor ratified by the President.

You could put 9 democrats on the court, and if you don't have 67 democratic senators it isn't going anywhere. If 67 senators and the President vote and ratify the treaty, SCOTUS is an irrelevant afterthought.

If it ain't law...it's a moot point...literally.

Saying that SCOTUS and the Presidency are "so important" while overlooking the role of Congress is like saying the handlebars and chain are the most important parts of a bicycle while overlooking the tires.



I don't think anyone said it could become law without Congress. Just saying if it did, and was challenged in court a left leaning court could very well go along with it.


And no I don't think it would pass the Senate.

[Gutshot John]

I don't think anyone said it could become law without Congress. Just saying if it did, and was challenged in court a left leaning court could very well go along with it.


And no I don't think it would pass the Senate.

Except the current court leans right.

The notion put forward by some that packing the court with leftists is likely, let alone realistic, is pie in the sky. It's never going to happen, the one time it's been tried, was an abysmal failure. This is over and above the idea that the treaty would make it out of the Senate, to the President's desk to even get to the point where it could be challenged in the courts.

The article's author is blowing smoke. That's not to say you shouldn't call your reps and say "hell no", simply that there are other, far more real threats to the 2a.

[Cincinnatus]

I am also of the opinion that it will not pass--this time and in these circumstances. But the very fact that it is even being considered is an outrage and a travesty. I am not surprised by this one bit, but I am outraged at this intolerable violation of U.S. sovereignty, and that the President and Secretary of State would endorse such a globalist, anti-American agenda is positively criminal and worse than dereliction of duty.

[bullseye]

i was involved in a discussion of ''what ifs???'' yesterday. one thing that got a lot of chatter was the fear that ''somebody'' was gonna stir up double the trouble on the 4th, than happened on memorial day week-end. and then ogoober declare martial law. for the ''good and safety'' of the public, of course. it would be reasonable he could declare firearms unlawful, and naturally,, postpone the election,, remaining the supreme commander. i don't know if any of this would work, or nor, but i sure wouldn't put it past the commie libtards.

[Belmont31R]

Except the current court leans right.

The notion put forward by some that packing the court with leftists is likely, let alone realistic, is pie in the sky. It's never going to happen, the one time it's been tried, was an abysmal failure. This is over and above the idea that the treaty would make it out of the Senate, to the President's desk to even get to the point where it could be challenged in the courts.

The article's author is blowing smoke. That's not to say you shouldn't call your reps and say "hell no", simply that there are other, far more real threats to the 2a.



Which is why he said this is why elections matter because of SCOTUS, and Obama has already had two nominations. If anything happens to one of the right leaning judges he would get a 3rd, and it would tip the balance to the left. Thats all anyone is saying.

[Trajan]

What are the legal ramifications if POTUS and the Senate violate the Constitution?

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Soooo what would we all do if this did pass? :jester:

Doesn't affect me, I don't have guns. Nothing to see here, move along.


Which is why he said this is why elections matter because of SCOTUS, and Obama has already had two nominations. If anything happens to one of the right leaning judges he would get a 3rd, and it would tip the balance to the left. Thats all anyone is saying.

That's what I meant. Most people think, and I really wish, there was some kind of objective standard and a clear line of consitutional/not-constitutinal. SCOTUS is made up of individuals that are frankly getting more and more political- I think because legislatures punt or pass on problems and liberals see the courts as a way to circumvent what they can't get in legislatures. I don't know how you could fail anyone in a constitutional law class. The court is almost never 9-0, so someone smart enough to get on the court disagrees with the decision. Only thing more goofy than taking a Constitutional class would be teaching one- what kind of moral and legal mumbo-jumbo reasoning would you'd get out of someone like that. They'd have to have a teleprompter tell them what they should say all the time. Hope that never happens.


What are the legal ramifications if POTUS and the Senate violate the Constitution?

You mean like campaign finance laws or Obama Care? Not much, and then only decades later if it does after the damage is done.

[Cincinnatus]

I should also add, that while I don't think this attempt will pass, it is important that with every such attempt the Senators or Representatives from your state hear "hark from the tomb" so to speak, from their constituents. The day something like this comes along and they don't hear much outrage from their district is the day they decide it's politically safe to start supporting gun control again.