International treaty can trump the Constitution

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ShootWhenICan

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 5, 2012
    I know there are some here who are not worried about this and assume the UN is powerless
    but folks I'm telling you, this could be a very serious threat to our Constitutional rights.

    [h=1]Ted Cruz criticizes DOJ for arguing international treaty can trump the Constitution[/h] By JOEL GEHRKE | OCTOBER 30, 2013 AT 3:50 PM

    Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

    Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S. allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities.
    That is a dangerous argument, according to Cruz.

    "The Constitution created a limited federal government with only specific enumerated powers," Cruz told the Washington Examiner prior to giving a speech on the issue today at the Heritage Foundation.

    "The Supreme Court should not interpret the treaty power in a manner that undermines this bedrock protection of individual liberty,” Cruz said.

    In his speech, Cruz said the Justice Department is arguing "an absurd proposition" that "could be used as a backdoor way to undermine" Second Amendment rights, among other things.

    The underlying case, Bond v. United States, involves a woman charged with violating the international ban on chemical weapons because she used toxic chemicals to harass a former friend who had an affair with her husband.

    Under the Constitution, such an offense would be handled at the state level. In Bond's case, the federal government prosecuted her under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

    That law implements the Chemical Weapons Convention, the international treaty Syrian dictator Bashar Assad is accused of violating in that country's vicious civil war.

    "The problem here is precisely that Congress, rather than implementing the treaty consistent with our constitutional system of federalism, enacted a statute that, if construed to apply to petitioner’s conduct, would violate basic structural guarantees and exceed Congress's enumerated powers," according to Bond's lawyers.

    The Judicial Crisis Network's Carrie Severino said the Bond case could have ramifications for many other issues.
    "If the administration is right, the treaty power could become a backdoor way for the federal government to do everything from abolishing the death penalty nationwide, to outlawing homeschooling, to dramatically curtailing the states' rights to regulate abortion," she told the Washington Examiner.

    The Judicial Crisis Network is a conservative legal activist group.

    Ted Cruz criticizes DOJ for arguing international treaty can trump the Constitution |

    Shotgun Jeremy

    Spelling Bee Champeon
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jul 8, 2012
    Central Texas
    I don't really see what we can do about the whole UN mess. I don't see any elections being held on what the people feel needs to be done, and there's no major elections coming up right now. You can protest, but we see how far that's gotten things so far.


    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 11, 2012
    Smiths Station AL
    No they cannot trump the constitution. The Chemical Weapons Convention treaty was signed by Bush Sr on Jan 13, 1993. It was ratified by the Senate on April 24, 1997. No, treaties do not and will not surpass anything on the US Constitution/Bill of Rights. Foreign treaties have to be ratified by the 2/3 majority in the Senate to have any weight in terms of legality.


    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Aug 27, 2009
    San Antonio!
    It is not "a serious threat to our Constitution," show me one instance where the UN trumped a nation's founding document!

    Quit fear-mongering, it's about as embarrassing as the articles claiming there would be a UN flag flying over the Alamo simply because it was put on that organization's world historical markers list.

    The UN is not going to take our guns away either...


    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 11, 2009
    H-Town, TX
    I agree that this SHOULDN'T be a threat, but given this administration's record... they're so perverted that they only believe what they want to believe, and will stop at nothing to make sure you believe it too. Definitely keep an eye on it and don't just dismiss it because it shouldn't happen.

    sent from deep space


    Been Called "Flash" Since I Was A Kid!
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jul 11, 2009
    East Houston
    This is just another indicator of Obama's incompetence. He should never authorize the signing of a treaty that he has no legal authority to enforce in the United States. To abide by that treaty, he breaks all of our laws, disregards Supreme Court rulings and he wipes his butt with the Constitution and Bill Of Rights. You infer that he will enforce the treaty illegally and begin disarming our population. More likely, it's just more lying, people pleasing and bravado on the part of the POTUS.

    Obama loves to pee on our Constitution at every opportunity. You can view that as a threat or as a measure of his incompetence.

    Last edited:
    Top Bottom