Chuck Norris fact: He’s so intimidating he can even turn the Politico into a tool for supporting the right to bear arms.
It’s been said that guns have two enemies — rust and politicians. Rust never sleeps, and neither do those who would seek to restrict our constitutional rights. So let me tell you about a meeting you weren’t invited to, where those people were planning an attack on our rights that’s very much “under the radar.”
It happened in July at the United Nations headquarters in New York, at a meeting to draft of what they call the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty.
An Arms Trade Treaty doesn’t sound bad in concept — isn’t that what the U.N. is for? The problem, however, is what U.N. diplomats consider to be “arms.” To you and me, the word means tanks, fighter jets, missiles, that kind of thing. But look no further than the U.N. plaza to see what the silk-stocking set considers “arms.” There you will find a bronze statue of a simple .38 revolver — with its barrel tied into a knot.
Additional Chuck Norris fact: He scared 13 Senate Democrats into opposing this sneakthief travesty.
For an administration with a secretive itch for gun control, the situation is ideal. They can let the United Nations do the dirty work of drafting onerous new restrictions on civilian firearms, then package them inside a treaty with legitimate measures to control true military armaments.
The U.N. has scheduled the treaty to be finished in July of next year — just in time to go to the Obama White House for ratification.
That’s “under the radar” for you.
But one risk of operating under the radar is that you can’t see the moves of your opponents. This is not the first U.N. gun-control rodeo for my friends at the National Rifle Association. They know treaty ratification requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Thirty-four senators would have to vote no to block the treaty.
While the rest of Washington was fixated on the debt ceiling debate, the NRA quietly marshaled opposition to the treaty among pro-gun senators.
Fifty-eight senators have now called out the president on his plan. Led by Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), 45 Republicans and 13 Democrats have written two strong letters —one from members of each party — to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. All the senators have vowed to oppose any treaty that restricts civilian firearm ownership.
Hey, question: Can the Supreme Court declare a ratified treaty unconstitutional? and if they do what then?
Yes. A treaty does not supersede the Constitution. But that does not mean certain justices won’t try to trample on our liberties regardless.
Hey, let’s not even go there. Nip it in the bud in the Senate. Remember when McCain-Feingold campaign reform passed. Surely Bush wouldn’t sign it. Crap. Surely the Supreme Court won’t uphold it. Double crap.
Unfortunately no,
From what I understand, once the treaty is signed by the president and ratified by the Senate it becomes part of the Constitution, and therefore cannot be ruled unconstitutional.
A treaty does not impact or change the constitution. NAFTA had no impact on the constitution. Now, what would happen if the Senate (before 2012) were to ratify a treaty that “Violated” the constitution? Not sure, though I guess it would not be until someone tried to enforce the treaty or to use it as precedence would there be an issue of constitutionality.
The only thing that becomes part of the Constitution is an Amendment, or a repeal of an Amendment.
No, a ratified treaty becomes LAW, not part of the Constitution. It can always be overturned by Congress, just like any other law — especially if the terms of the treaty are adjudged to impinge on our Constitutional rights. But that’s all theory. Much better to nip it in the bud in the Senate, as Mr. Saddleburr suggested.
A treaty once ratified is part of the law, not part of the Constitution. Just as statutory laws cannot (in principle) repeal constitutional provisions, neither can treaties.
Treaties can be abrogated. Obama won’t bother with this during an election year (and the senate won’t even go there as well) and in 2013 he will be gone.
Since the 2nd Amendment was ratified after the Constitution, it restricts and modifies previous articles of the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment does not merely restrict Congress, as does the 1st Amendment. As such, it restricts the entire government, to include the courts and the executive, and acts as a restriction of the government on the ability of the government to make a treaty, just as the 13th amendment would forbid making a treaty that would reinstitute slavery.
For Obama to sign a treaty that conflicts with the 2nd Amendment would be grounds for impeachment or worse.
Having said that, depending on impeachment of SCOTUS review is a weaker support than merely defeating it politically in the Senate.
@ DonM; Don; the Constitution was in the process of being ratified when some of the States, noteably Virginia, insisted on codifing the rights of the people. With out the adoption of what is now known as the Bill of Rights, the Constitution would not have been adopted. There would be no United States as we know it today. The states that had accepted the Constitution prior to the inclusion of the first 12 amendments had to re-vote on the matter. Any attempt to repeal any of the first 12 amendments is a breaking of the contract between the states and the Federal government; it will leave us with no lawful government.
While a treaty holds equal power to a Constitutional Amendment, unlike an Amendment, the Supreme Court my strike it down as unconstitutional.
see Reid v. Covert: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
Not to be nitpick, but the article you linked to contains the supreme court quote: “this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty,”
Since a Ratified Amendment is part of the Constitution, that would mean that any treaty is NOT equal to an Amendment, (or any other part of the constitution.)
That having been said, I’m not sure where a treaty ranks in terms of it’s ability to override other Laws. I’m assuming Constitution > Ratified Treaties > All other Laws. (But I’m not a Lawyer.)
Nothing this administration does surprises me any more. Now, if they were to do something good for the country, that would surprise me.
This administration has already done something good for the country. They woke up the sleeping conservative Giant. That Giant had his appetizer in 2010. Fixing to go to the main course in 2012.
Good point. Obama has done a huge amount of good by showing the entire US how atrociously bad leftist gov can be.
Obama has even done a decent job of fulfilling his promise to unite the country, since the country is now very close to being united, against him.
For the Left (and much of the activist right), abeyance to the Constitution is merely a nuisance. You never know what could be interpreted by a Federal Court.
Remember Roe v. Wade was based on the discovery of “Penumbras and Emanations” in the Constitution….
So where does Chuck come into it?
Look at the link to the Politico article.
Look at the byline.
That “bronze statue of a simple .38 revolver” represents a Colt Python, a civilian handgun never adopted by any military or government, as Kim du Toit pointed out. The UN has no problem with government thugs with guns, indeed it would happily employ them, but the idea of civilians with guns frightens it. May it always do so.
Seems like treason. He would be disarming us, thus providing help to our enemies. And going against the plainly written words of the Constitution. Pull this crap, and he’ll get thrown out of office, maybe even before the election. They can pull my gun out of my cold, dead fingers after they burn the Constitution.
As I see it; the big problem is not that the Senate will ratify the treaty. They will probably get enough pressure from their constituents that they will vote against ratification. The bigger problem is that he will try to implement the requirements of the treaty while waiting for the senate to act.
Of all of the statism that has been gobbling up the country, mostly w/o much of a fight, gun control is the one line in the sand that I think would finally waken our zombie nation.
Is Harry Reid one of those Democrat Senators? The NRA stayed neutral in the last election in Nevada because of his past voting record, is he one of the 14 Democrats or is he playing weasel on this vote. Shumer, Feinstein and Obama; they were all together when Obama was telling Brady we have something working under the radar. Now we know what that was, “Fast and Furious” and the United Nations “Small Arms Treaty.” Why do I feel that Democrats are really communists anymore and that everything for the last two years was for a ‘regime’ instead of a Republic, these “Democrats seem to be more of the apparatchiki than servants of the People.
IMHO Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are both traitors for even allowing tacit support for this travesty in the UN. They did not fight against it, hell they did not even object to it as it made its way through the corrupt halls of the UN.
The oath of office they took says they will support and defend the
US Constitution. They have violated their oaths, period. Thats treason! And grounds for impeachment. When is someone in congress going to grow a pair and call for impeachment for crimes against my country.
I think this U.N. treaty will not be ratified by the Senate, regardless of the hopes and wishes of the President and Secretary of State. Contrary to the language in the article, the President does not ratify treaties, the Senate does. There are Senators on both sides of the aisle who are staunch supporters of the Second Amendment, the NRA is zeroed in on this, the issues has a lot of visibility, and I believe it is doomed. Treaty ratification requires a 2/3 vote. This is the process it has to go through:
In the United States a treaty must be consented to by the Senate. The first step in that process, usually, is review of the treaty by the current administration, to see if it is consistent with United States policies and law.
The United States State Department reviews each treaty for the administration and prepares a recommendation for the President on whether the United States should ratify the treaty. The State Department prepares the documents for submission to the Senate to request approval of the treaty. A final review of these documents is made by the President’s staff. If the President considers the treaty in the best interests of the United States, the documents are sent to the Senate, to start the process of consent.
A treaty sent to the Senate for ratification is referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. A review of the histories in the Senate for recent treaties forwarded to that committee indicates various results. Usually, there is a hearing on the treaty, to determine if there are any public concerns, or need for special legislative implementation. A political decision is made by the Committee Chair on what the appropriate process should be.
The submission of a treaty to the Senate may include specific reservations or declarations that should be made, recommended by the administration.
There may be United States laws that need to be changed as a result of treaty approval. A separate legislative bill is introduced by the administration to accomplish this change, and the bill follows the standard process for approval of new laws in the Congress. The Senate may wait for the legislation approval before giving its consent to the treaty.
This process requires public input, and it is a significant effort. It is one of the important next steps that needs to occur for the United States ratification of treaties to occur. The Senate may wait for the complete package, law and rules change, before providing its consent. The final steps for Senate consent are a recommendation by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a favorable vote by the Senate, which requires a 2/3 majority to pass.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is responsive to expressions of support and questions from the public. Companies and other organizations can contact this Committee to express their support and ask questions.
So as we can see, this is a long and complex process, with plenty of opportunity for individuals and organizations to make their objections known. Neither the President nor the Secretary of State has the authority to impose this type of treaty on the citizens of the United States, particularly when there is an implied constitutional issue at stake, in addition to the many state laws pertaining to the ownership and use of firearms that would be impacted.
It would take 67 Senate votes to ratify a treaty. It just isn’t going to happen. It would be unlikely that this this Senate could get 51% of the vote for a RKBA unfriendly bill. Which is why there hasn’t been any blatent gun unfriendly bills passed through the senate for a while, While there has been a few small gains pushed through during this administration despite Obama’s anti gun reputation.
http://libertysblog.com/2010/08/obama-signs-pro-gun-bill-ron-paul-voted-against/
Start II, which binds us against Russia and thereby forces us to ignore China’s strategic arsenal, lay unratified in the senate for 25 years before the O gang whooped it thru right before the holidays.