Gun Control: International Small Arms Treaty to be signed 27Jul2012

[Whiskey_Rocka_Rolla]

Yeah, and Congress can only regulate Interstate Commerce not laws within a state. We saw how quickly that went to shit.

This is still a waste of their time, and the only possible outcome if they REALLY try to push this is complete civil chaos. Yet they still are determined to see it through. Sometimes I think Alex Jones is right with all his seemingly off the wall ramblings, that they are TRYING to push the country into Martial Law.

 

[stdreb27]

At this point, we know the supreme court isn't going to stop obama, he's doing things that he's said himself aren't legal. As far as I'm concerned nothing is out of the question...

 

[Whiskey_Rocka_Rolla]

At this point, we know the supreme court isn't going to stop obama, he's doing things that he's said himself aren't legal. As far as I'm concerned nothing is out of the question...

Then I guess nothing will be out of the question when it finally meets opposition with force, which will inevitably happen. May not be next year, the year after, or even 5 years later, but one day, it will happen if they keep on with this.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Then I guess nothing will be out of the question when it finally meets opposition with force, which will inevitably happen. May not be next year, the year after, or even 5 years later, but one day, it will happen if they keep on with this.

Not if people pull their head out of their ass and get involved politically.

 

[stx kid]

Not if people pull their head out of their ass and get involved politically.

That's not going to happen without civil liberties being ripped away IMO

 

[M. Sage]

sigh

Treaties do not affect internal laws of nations.

Actually, they can affect our internal laws according to the Constitution. When a treaty is ratified, it becomes part of Federal Law.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Actually, they can affect our internal laws according to the Constitution. When a treaty is ratified, it becomes part of Federal Law.

Yeah, but Federal law can't contradict the Constitution. There would have to be an amendment.

Of course this is only theoretically correct. In practice the Constitution is just something pissed off people point to that has no real meaning any more.

 

[J. Fred]

Yeah, but Federal law can't contradict the Constitution.

Here is what the Supreme Court had to say about Treaties that contradict our Constitution....

" The issue of whether treaties overwhelm the Constitution was specifically considered by the US Supreme Court in the case of Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). The Court ruled:

. . .no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. . . .

This court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the constitution over a treaty.
This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.
​

Note that the Court held that acts of Congress are legally equal to treaties. Acts must comply with the Constitution, so treaties, being on “full parity” with acts, must also comply. The Court continued,

No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on Congress or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the constitution.
​

Chief Justice of the United States Joseph Story wrote in the 19th century,

A power given by the Constitution cannot be construed to authorize a destruction of other powers given in the same instrument. . . . A treaty to change the organization of the Government, or to annihilate its sovereignty, to overturn its republican form, or to deprive it of its constitutional powers, would be void; because it would destroy what it was designed merely to fulfill, the will of the people."

Here is some reading about Treaties...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/10.html​

 

[jamesmrj]

J Fred, that bit you posted is very heartening that the treaty won't directly affect us here. I'm still rather concerned about the indirect effects, as most guns are no longer produced in the US. This will drive up costs of guns and ammo due to scarcity. Hopefully the treaty will not pass period. Then again, hopefully i'll inherit a couple thousand acres of land from an unknown rich relative.

 

[Tcruse]

By any measure, this treaty is not good for us or other countries. We can all just sit back and say second ammendment will take care of everything. I know that my understanding of the second ammendment would not go along with a lot of the restrictions that I see already (especially in IL, NY, NJ, and CA). I see import restrictions on Glock giving us such things as a non-smooth trigger on G26 and inablility to get some other really good guns. I worry about things like F&F operations and "Under the radar". So, I think that you should make your concerns known to your representatives.

 

[M. Sage]

Yeah, but Federal law can't contradict the Constitution. There would have to be an amendment. Of course this is only theoretically correct. In practice the Constitution is just something pissed off people point to that has no real meaning any more.

That's true, but don't forget that McDonald and Heller are both vague on a few key points.Just the same, the treaty won't make it through the Senate.

 

[Rum Runner]

I think many of you dismissing the significance of the administration signing this treaty are making a big mistake.

According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969:

Article 18
Obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force
A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when:
(a) it has signed the treaty or has exchanged instruments constituting the treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty;

So according to the Vienna Convention, if it is signed, but not yet ratified, we are obliged to refrain from anything that would violate it.

You may argue that the US never ratified the Vienna Convention, but our argument against ratification has been that it is a restatement of customary international law which we are already bound to.

Unratified Treaties, Domestic Politics, and the U.S. Constitution
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2517&context=faculty_scholarship

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Despite the Senate’s rejection of that treaty in 1999 by a vote of fifty-one to forty-eight, which meant that the treaty lacked majority, let alone two-thirds, support, the Clinton Administration maintained that the United States still had an obligation under the treaty to avoid testing nuclear weapons by virtue of its earlier signature.

The practical significance of these purported signing obligations is illustrated by the U.S. decision to “unsign” the International Criminal Court treaty. In making its announcement, the Bush Administration expressly sought to preclude arguments that it was bound to assist the Court as a result of the signature. The letter sent by the United States to the Secretary-General stated that “the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty,” and that “[a]ccordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature [of the treaty],” an apparent reference to
Article 18 of the Vienna Convention.

To be sure, it is difficult to argue that the Article II treaty process is the only way in which the United States can constitutionally enter into binding international agreements. The Constitution, in limiting state involvement in foreign affairs, refers not only to “Treaties” — the term used in Article II — but also to “Agreements” and “Compacts,” thus suggesting that there may be some international agreements that are not subject to the Article II process. In fact, the United States has entered into many binding international agreements during its history without going through the Article II process. This practice has been especially prevalent in the period since World War II, during which time the vast majority of international agreements entered into by the United States have not gone through the two thirds senatorial consent process. Indeed, in the fifty-year period between 1939 and 1989, the United States entered into 11,698 “executive agreements” (agreements concluded outside of the Article II process) and only 702 Article II treaties.

several Supreme Court decisions have held that these agreements (primarily involving settlement of claims and recognition of foreign governments) are not only binding on the United States internationally but also operate domestically as preemptive federal law.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in American Insurance Association v. Garamendi does not change this conclusion about the limitations of sole ex-ecutive agreements. In Garamendi, the Supreme Court held that a California statute was preempted because it posed an obstacle to the achievement of executive branch policy that was embodied in certain executive agreements relating to the settlement of Holocaust-era claims. Although the case involved binding international agreements, there is language in the Court’s opinion that could be read as suggesting that the executive might have the unilateral power to preempt state law in foreign affairs. In particular, the Court noted that “at some point an exercise of state power that touches on foreign relations must yield to the National Government’s policy” and that “there is executive authority to decide what that policy should be.”

My bottom line:
None of us are constitutional scholars. It is obvious to me that the whole intent of signing this treaty in a couple weeks is for this administration to make another end run around our Constitution. This administration runs roughshod over the constitution at will. Please do not dismiss this so easily.

 

[J. Fred]

I think many of you dismissing the significance of the administration signing this treaty are making a big mistake.

My bottom line:
None of us are constitutional scholars. It is obvious to me that the whole intent of signing this treaty in a couple weeks is for this administration to make another end run around our Constitution. This administration runs roughshod over the constitution at will. Please do not dismiss this so easily.

Point taken and it's an excellent point too.

 

[macshooter]

Well I have no faith in what is and is not constitutional anymore. Clearly what is constitutional according to today's standards is whatever the f*ck jerk X on the federal courts says it is for whatever reason on any particular day. The idea that a signed treaty is obligates us to abide by it even if it's not ratified by the senate is insane. What's the point of ratifying it then? Bottomline is this is all lawlessness and smoke and mirrors where the govt is doing some kind of song and dance that is supposed to convince us that our 2A rights have been stripped by some legal means, and that we should therefore hand over our arms.

Well let them dance. And when they are done dancing around and signing papers and treaties and we still remain unconvinced that the 2nd amendment no longer applies anymore, they will have to stop dancing and use force. That's what it all comes down to in the end. All that remains to be seen is whether the people of this country will allow themselves to be disarmed easily like the fools in other countries like UK/AUS.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

My rights were not granted by any other human or document.

They are inherent in my humanity - inalienable - recognized not granted.

I wish the UN would quit discussing them like its something they have the authority to decide upon.

 

[JimBobKelley]

Does it really matter if Congress ratifies this or not? I recall not too long ago Mr. Panetta before Congress letting them know that they do not need the approval of Congress to do anything. They seek the UN's approval. So POTUS signs this UN treaty. It seems like Congressional approval or not it WILL effect us all.

 

[macshooter]

The UN is a f*cking joke. An excuse for two bit dictators living off stolen wealth from destitute 3rd world countries to get together and party in New York a few times a year. UN resolutions get ignored by even the shittiest pathetic little countries. The UN can't do sh*t about anything going on in Syria or Egypt or Iran, Iraq, Darfur or wherever, they sit around with their thumbs up their asses passing resolutions that amount to nothing, and yet we, the citizens of the most powerful country in the world are supposed to snap to attention and obey because one or two people (obama and clinton) signed a UN treaty? 2 people with the stroke of a pen, are going to undo the Constitution and 2nd Amendment and strip 300 million people of their constitutional rights?

 

[M. Sage]

Does it really matter if Congress ratifies this or not? I recall not too long ago Mr. Panetta before Congress letting them know that they do not need the approval of Congress to do anything. They seek the UN's approval. So POTUS signs this UN treaty. It seems like Congressional approval or not it WILL effect us all.

Again, he can "sign", but it will lack the force of law. It won't be the first time a President put his name on some meaningless treaty. In fact, Clinton signed an arms control treaty, but it's never been ratified by the Senate... and never will.

 

[JimBobKelley]

Again, he can "sign", but it will lack the force of law. It won't be the first time a President put his name on some meaningless treaty. In fact, Clinton signed an arms control treaty, but it's never been ratified by the Senate... and never will.

I know, I know but the fact that Panetta has the balls to tell Congress that the administration consults the UN first and then acts is terrifying to me. Seems like the they are making up the rules as they go along. It needs to stop now, but at what cost? Who is going to stand up and say enough? Collectively we are many but are we enough to make a change?

I agree with Flash and we need to pull the "flush" lever in November.

 

[JimBobKelley]

It seems like a lot more American's need their eyes opened and stop believing everything the MSM shows on the modern version of Plato's Cave Wall.