U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Central Florida
    Umm... Something to remember, old news (oximoron?) or not, a treaty can supercede our Constitution or so I've been told. Anyone have a source for impperical fact regarding treaty VS Constitution?

  3. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by walt629 View Post
    Umm... Something to remember, old news (oximoron?) or not, a treaty can supercede our Constitution or so I've been told. Anyone have a source for impperical fact regarding treaty VS Constitution?
    The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution gives the Fed the ability to make treaty's; typically initiated by the President and State Department, but they must be ratified/confirmed by a Senate Majority...
    Here is a good start on the "Supremacy Clause" Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and the "Bricker Amendment" that could have prevented such issues... Bricker Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert would make it appear such a treaty in conflict with the Constitution unlikely of being overturned (Reid v. Covert being overturned) by a Conservative SCOTUS, although highly likely of being overturned (Reid v. Covert being overturned) by a Liberal SCOTUS Obama & Company are trying to stack the deck with and thus allowing such a treaty to stand...

    Additionally, when the Constitution was originally ratified Senators were selected differently then they are now...

    IF Obama & Company were able to slam such a treaty down our throats before November 2nd, 2010 like they have ObamaCare, it will years before it gets before SCOTUS and not before 2013 before a new Congress & President could repeal it... meaning a lot of damage could happen between now and then...

    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
    Ronald Reagan
    40th president of US (1911 - 2004)

    Yet another reason why it is so important to take back Congress this November 2nd, 2010 ...


    Fire Congress

    No Liberals

    No Democrats

    No RINOS


    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Monmouth, Or.
    Article V of our Constitution

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

    It takes a lot more than just a greater than 50% majority to amend the Constitution. The amendment process starts with either a two thirds vote of both the Senate and the House Of Representatives to propose an amendment or two thirds of the states legislatures call for a convention to propose an amendment. A proposed amendment can only be ratified by by either three fourths of the state legislatures or by three fourths of state conventions. The president of the United States has no part in this process.

    The processes mentioned above are the only legal ways to change our Constitution. Many have been lead to believe that treaties can override the Constitution. This is simply not true.

    People refer to Article VI of the Constitution as why the believe that treaties supersede the Constitution.

    All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

    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.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

    The second paragraph is always mentioned in regard to treaties. The third paragraph is important also because it says that members of our government are bound by oath to support the Constitution. They can not violate the Constitution. Passing a treaty that violates the Constitution would be a violation of their oath of office.

    The phrase in the second paragraph, "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land", is what confuses some. Treaties are under the authority of the United States. A treaty that would change our law of the land, the Constitution, would not be legal.

    Treaties must be ratified by two thirds of the Senate. Any member of the Senate that votes in favor of ratifying a treaty that violates the Constitution would be violating their oath of office. Members of the government that violate their oath of office can be fined and imprisoned.

    One last thing. When I explain this I am usually told that Barack Obama will still try take away our Second Amendment rights because he doesn't care about the law. This is true. Barack Obama has no regard for our laws. The point of this is to explain that what he is trying to do is not legal. If everyone thinks that a treaty with the United Nations can legally take away our Second Amendments rights then most citizens will not stand up and fight this. There is a reason that the treaty myth has been around for a while. It is to make us think that we have no legal way to save our rights when treaties are involved. We have to contact our state legislatures and our representatives in the federal government and let them know that an attempt to change the Constitution with a treaty is illegal. Let them know that if they don't make an attempt to stop this then they are violating their oaths of office.


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 04-26-2010, 06:21 PM
  2. I know this has been here before.
    By GETMRUTN in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-14-2010, 09:25 AM
  3. Do You Support Or Oppose Free Trade Agreements?
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-27-2010, 09:38 PM
  4. International treaty may be used to suspend your 2A rights!
    By Tea For One in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-06-2010, 11:02 PM
  5. Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty
    By HK4U in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-27-2009, 02:18 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts