Side-stepping the Constitution

M

Mauszer

Inactive
I'm surprised I haven't seen this posted anywhere yet...

http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/global-gun-control-law-pushed-by-clinton

Lets forget for a second that an international treaty requires a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate for ratification. This is blatant abuse of the executive branch's authority to enter into treaties with foreign nations in an effort to bypass our legislative branch and undermine the Constitution. Isn't this a direct conflict with the President's oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution?"

Edit: Removed names. They are included in the article mentioned.
 
Last edited:
From my cold dead hand
Click to expand...
is the first thing that comes to mind when I read that. The UN wants our guns, let them come and get em.


Thank god the anti gun types won't have a 2/3 majority ANY time soon. In 5 or 10 years though who knows?

Does this kind of treaty have a shelf life (can it be voted on 10 years after passage by the UN? Or does the Senate have X number of months or years to ratify it.)


PS: I can think of atleast 2 other threads where this issue has come up, Just havn't seen activity in weeks.
 
Lets forget for a second that an international treaty requires a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate for ratification.
Click to expand...

It's not really possible to set that aside. The Executive can support any treaty that it wishes, but because of our rather unique system of government, the Legislature must overwhelmingly support it as well.

That treaty is well worth keeping our eyes on, but as far as the Senate goes, it's DOA.

I don't see what the current administration is doing regarding that treaty that is an abuse of its power. The Executive is responsible for negotiating treaties, good or bad, and that's what Secretary Clinton and the State Department is doing. Oh, it's a bad treaty, that's for sure, but not an abuse of power.
 
This is from Senate.gov

Senate Options
The Senate, itself, does not ratify treaties--actual ratification only takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the parties. When a treaty is submitted to the Senate for approval, it has several options for action. Depending on whether or not a two-thirds majority votes in favor, the Senate may approve or reject the treaty as it has been submitted. It may make its approval conditional by including in the resolution amendments to the text of the treaty, reservations, understandings, interpretations, declarations, or other statements. The president and the other countries involved must then decide whether to accept the conditions and changes in the legislation, renegotiate the provisions, or abandon the treaty. Finally, the Senate may choose to take no definitive action, leaving the treaty pending in the Senate until withdrawn at the request of the president or, occasionally, at the initiative of the Senate.
Click to expand...

So it seems the treaty cannot be in full force and effect until it is approved by the senate. The site goes further to state:

Executive Agreements


In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law.
Click to expand...
 
And a tre4aty cannot alter the terms of the Constitution.

Any portion that did would not be valid (no matter what the Senate ratified).
 
And a tre4aty cannot alter the terms of the Constitution.

Any portion that did would not be valid (no matter what the Senate ratified).
Click to expand...

Agreed. It just seems that our administration (and politicians in general really) like(s) to find creative ways around the system of checks and balances which always puts our Constution in the position of defense.

I did however learn quite a bit about treaties just now (which is never a bad thing), and the original article that I referenced needs some editing. In its current form it is fairly inaccurate but still scary stuff.
 
Patriot86 said:
Does this kind of treaty have a shelf life (can it be voted on 10 years after passage by the UN? Or does the Senate have X number of months or years to ratify it.)
Click to expand...
No time limit. There was an international Hague convention regarding international adoptions that was drafted in (IIRC) around 1985 or 1988. The U.S. finally ratified it in March of 2006 (again, IIRC - I might be off by a year, but the fact the U.S. finally signed it totally screwed up our adoption of a child. We were literally about ten days short of completion, and that ratification cost us two more years and several thousand dollars.)
 
So basically Obama can sign this thing and his party can just bide its time waiting for the RIGHT time to force it down our throats, just like healthcare...swell. I think a REPUBLICAN controlled congress needs to pass an amendment to the constitution immediately that CLEARLY states no treaty's shall be signed that interfere with Americans constitutional rights or something to that effect. I know my language is broad but it is needed.
 
It's not really possible to set [the 2/3 Senate vote requirement] aside. The Executive can support any treaty that it wishes, but because of our rather unique system of government, the Legislature must overwhelmingly support it as well... That treaty is well worth keeping our eyes on, but as far as the Senate goes, it's DOA.
Click to expand...
+1. For the classic example of what happens when the President bets the farm on an unpopular treaty that lacks Senate support, simply Google "League of Nations". :rolleyes:
...the original article that I referenced needs some editing. In its current form it is fairly inaccurate but still scary stuff.
Click to expand...
IMHO the original article is edited exactly the way the writer intended- it's intentionally misleading and full of weasel words. It's written to exploit the fact that many people don't understand how the American treaty ratification process works. It's meant to scare you for political reasons, not educate you. :rolleyes:
I think [the] congress needs to pass an amendment to the constitution immediately that CLEARLY states no treaty's shall be signed that interfere with Americans constitutional rights...
Click to expand...
Such an amendment would be redundant. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and bad treaties don't change that. An unconstitutional treaty is exactly like an unconstitutional domestic law; it can be voided by the courts.

People act like treaties are untouchable and written in stone; they're not. Keep in mind that countries routinely abrogate treaties and ignore international agreements when it's convenient for them to do so. Just because the US Senate ratifies a piece of paper negotiated in an international forum doesn't mean that it can't (and won't) be tossed by the wayside later.
 
Yawn.

In other news, the sky is falling. Anybody wanna buy some helmets? ;)

The whole article is recycled quotes of Joan Sharon, who appears to be an ignorant and sensationalist peddler of misinformation.

It's not even interesting. There's already been what, a dozen locked threads about this and two or three reasonable ones?

Critics believe Obama will appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation in the United States
Click to expand...

Why be realistic? That's so boring.

I mean, erm, damn blue helmets! Cold dead hands and NWO, and such.

:rolleyes:
 
You have it right when you say nations ignore treaties when it is convenient for them to do so. There really isn't such a thing as "neutral" anymore, although the concept was generally honored in WWI, when I suppose men were more honorable. But not in WWII. We weren't so good at keeping treaties with the Indians either, although it really wasn't the government that ignored them, it was the people.

While the constitution may be the supreme law of the land, plenty of people here wish otherwise, generally crying states rights or something like that. I think we should either abolish state governments or the federal government. Just an idea.
 
Patriot86 said:
So basically Obama can sign this thing and his party can just bide its time waiting for the RIGHT time to force it down our throats
Click to expand...

He doesn't need to because Clinton already signed the CIFTA Treaty many moons ago. However, even with the Democrats having a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and ratification of CIFTA being a top priority of the Obama Administration (according to their own press release), the Senate never even considered trying to ratify the treaty. I presume Sen. Reid's position as Majority Leader and his need to be re-elected in 2010 helped with that.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=410346&highlight=small+arms+treaty
 
And a tre4aty cannot alter the terms of the Constitution.

Any portion that did would not be valid (no matter what the Senate ratified).
Click to expand...

What Brickeye said. i really do wish that pro-Second Amendment advocates would do some research.

The guys who write most of this stuff are alarmists. First they tell you that the UN is going to take your guns. Then they tell you that for a small donation they will fight the dastardly UN. The NRA and the other guns rights organizations have bought into this fund raising tactic.

No international treaty, ratified or not, over-rules the US Constitution. In 1957 the US Supreme Court ruled in a case known as Reid vs Covert. Italics are mine.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=354&page=1

Quote:
Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

"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; .

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 [354 U.S. 1, 17] War, would remain in effect. 31 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. 32 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.
 
Last edited:
The NRA and the other guns rights organizations have bought into this fund raising tactic.
Click to expand...

The problem, as I've noted before, is that relying on the Supreme Court to invalidate a Small Arms Treaty signed by the President and ratified by the Senate is basically a last ditch effort. There are a lot of ways that strategy could go wrong.

Right now any threat of the UN Small Arms Treaty is remote at best; but that is in no small part because some organizations, like the NRA, have gotten certified as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and gone to the UN. Just this past summer, Wayne LaPierre addressed the UN Small Arms Treaty group. And the NRA's role in getting a filibuster-proof majority of Senators to say they wouldn't ratify such a treaty was helpful as well.

So, even though it remains a remote threat (in part thanks to such work) there is fighting that needs to be done there and there are organizations that are doing it. However, I'd be skeptical of any organization that claims to be fighting the UN treaty but hasn't even bothered to go to New York and participate in the process.
 
IMHO the original article is edited exactly the way the writer intended- it's intentionally misleading and full of weasel words. It's written to exploit the fact that many people don't understand how the American treaty ratification process works. It's meant to scare you for political reasons, not educate you.
Click to expand...

Very good post. Sorry i read it late.


"Fighting the UN small arms treaty" is part of the fund raising process. The people who run those organizations are aware this is a red herring issue. They are capitalizing on this issue because it stirs up gunowners who are not well informed.

The proposed UN small arms treaty would not restrict gun ownership in member countries. It is about the international peddling of small arms weapons.
 
Last edited:
dead_horse.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top