Kerry Commits U.S. To U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Gun Grab

Originally posted by SPECULUM
The UN has no authority within the US borders nor does any mandate on any civilian regardless of any treaty the US government enters into with the UN.

Our Constitution prohibits it without the unanimous consent of the PEOPLE


Its Treason

Don't forget that constitution means nothing to the current administration and the actions of said admin. up until now speak volumes. They have been wiping their feet on it and getting away with it since day one in office. He violated last year by simply bypassing Senate and appointing 3 members of the National Labor Relations Board .

There have been at least 7 other attempts to violate the constitution since Jan. 2009. It's just an outdated piece of paper to him.

Treason? Sure! No one has gone after him yet... The treaty if signed gives the UN an open front door and a key to the back door. John Kerry fully supports it on behalf of the administration. There is currently no language in the treaty to clearly define what a Civilian weapon is. Then there is the issue of international registry which would apply to all firearms.

The only reason the US put ice on this treaty back in July was because Obama had an election to win. He does not have to worry about that any longer.

If this thing passes, future amendments to it can be passed by only 2/3 of the member states who attend a conference. So we may agree to it on its face but it could be changed down the road regardless of US objections.

The funny thing is that the UN Arms Trade Treaty is aimed at keeping small arms from terrorists and rogue regimes and yet the US is known to arm and train unknown rebels to overthrow specific regimes to create a power vacuum that is often filled with something worse. i.e. Egypt and Libya in recent memory.

The treaty could still go into effect in other nations without US support once 65 countries ratify it. Imagine the impact on the pattern of world arms transfers and the reduction of the US share in those transfers. Probably part of the plan anyway. China could object to the US transferring arms to Taiwan ( a non un member) because they deem Taiwan as a hostile province. And on and on it goes.... It's bad on many fronts.

reply to post by rnaa


There is still the matter of this little thing called the Vienna Convention (signed by the US) which indicates that when we sign a treaty, until it is either rejected by the Senate or renounced by a president, it remains in force. ( to put it briefly) Say, Harry Reid refuses to send this to the floor for a vote?

This is from last year when the current admin. balked at the last minute to save face before the election. It still applies now.

Originally posted by jibeho
There is still the matter of this little thing called the Vienna Convention (signed by the US) which indicates that when we sign a treaty, until it is either rejected by the Senate or renounced by a president, it remains in force. ( to put it briefly) Say, Harry Reid refuses to send this to the floor for a vote?

Which violates the US Constitution which states it must be ratified by the Senate.

I refer you back to the Head Money Case where foreign treaties become a part of the US Federal body of law and are placed below the US Constitution.

reply to post by jibeho

There is still the matter of this little thing called the Vienna Convention (signed by the US) which indicates that when we sign a treaty, until it is either rejected by the Senate or renounced by a president, it remains in force. ( to put it briefly) Say, Harry Reid refuses to send this to the floor for a vote?

Which part of "an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law" do you fail to understand?

To which Vienna Convention do you refer? There are over a dozen.

Assuming you mean Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or Between International Organizations, there are several small problems with you using it for your argument. (That is the one that would apply to a treaty between the United States and the United Nations).

1) It isn't in force.

Article 85 of the Convention provides that it enters into force after the ratification by 35 states (international organizations may ratify, but their ratification does not count towards the number required for entry into force). On 26 September 2012, the UN Treaty Database listed 42 parties to the Convention, but only 30 states. As a result the Convention is not yet in force.

2) It doesn't say what you think it says.
The Convention says that when the signatory does not represent the legal authority to ratify a treaty covered by the Convention, that the ratification is pending. In the case of the US, only Congress can ratify a treaty so the President's signature on such a treaty is only a statement of intent and is not final. Furthermore, until such a treaty is ratified by the requisite number of signatories, it is NOT IN FORCE (see number 1 above). While signatories are required to refrain from ignoring the proviso's of the treaty while the ratification process proceeds, that does not mean the must actively adhere to those provisions, unless they so desire. The treaty is still not in force until ratification is complete.

3) The U.S. Constitution is not and cannot be overridden by an international treaty. Ever. Period.

I suppose you could be referring to this other Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, but that has problems for your argument too:

1) It applies to treaties between States (Nations), not between States and International Organizations like the UN. But at least it is in force as it has been ratified by the requisite number of States (Nations).

2) It doesn't say what you think it says. As always, the American representatives signature on a treaty is only the signaling of the intent of the United States to enter into that Treaty. It does not finally bind the US to that treaty; only Congress can do that. And once again, the Convention says that until a treaty has been ratified by the requisite number of Nations the signatories must refrain from defeating the purpose of the treaty. It doesn't say that they have to pro-actively follow the provisions of the treaty until it has been successfully ratified and put in force.

3) The U.S. Constitution is not and cannot be overridden by an international treaty. Ever. Period.

reply to post by rnaa


It may require gun registration ( Arms Trade Treaty @wikipedia ).

Since most of Europe already has a personal ID card implemented there is less of a issue there (and to a point looking to international arms trade the treaty seems a good thing but fails to note that most nations constantly violate arms embargoes, economic embargoes etc when it suits them. Like the US in Bosnia or even n the case of the Iran or the UN oil rush regarding the Oil for Food program in Iraq. Is there anyone that believes in politicians anymore ?!?

reply to post by rnaa


There are multiple factors at play here and you are only focusing on one. In regards to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as stated in Article 18. We signed it in 1970 and it's complicated regarding signing vs. ratification and the loopholes within. I have to dig more. Its complicated on purpose.

First:
•Article 11 says that States may bind themselves to a treaty by signing it, exchanging texts of it, ratifying it, or however else they agree.
•Article 12 says that a signature alone binds a State if the treaty says that it does.
•Article 14, on the other hand, says that ratification binds the State if the head of State signed it subject to having another body of government ratify it.
Most importantly. .Article 18 says that States must not do things to stop a treaty from taking force or effect while they wait for the right body of government to ratify it.

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; or
(b) it has expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty, pending the entry into force of the treaty and provided that such entry into force is not unduly delaye

Yes, it would have to be ratified by Senate. I have recognized that point many times. However, in order to be ratified, Harry Reid the majority leader, would have to put it on the floor for a vote. Until that vote is called (could take years) the treaty is in effect unless rejected by POTUS and that will not happen.

Furthermore, I mentioned the consequences even if the US does not ratify it formally in Senate or even if we don't sign it (not going to happen). If in the future the committee wants to amend the treaty they would only need 2/3 vote in committee to pass an amendment. Which means if the US objects to the amendment and they still have 2/3 they can pass an amendment that we Object to.

Back to the Vienna Convention according to the State Dept.

Is the United States a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties?


No. The United States signed the treaty on April 24, 1970. The U.S. Senate has not given its advice and consent to the treaty. The United States considers many of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to constitute customary international law on the law of treaties.

www.state.gov...

I need a break

reply to post by jibeho

There are multiple factors at play here and you are only focusing on one. In regards to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as stated in Article 18. We signed it in 1970 and it's complicated regarding signing vs. ratification and the loopholes within. I have to dig more. Its complicated on purpose.

First:
•Article 11 says that States may bind themselves to a treaty by signing it, exchanging texts of it, ratifying it, or however else they agree.
•Article 12 says that a signature alone binds a State if the treaty says that it does.
•Article 14, on the other hand, says that ratification binds the State if the head of State signed it subject to having another body of government ratify it.
Most importantly. .Article 18 says that States must not do things to stop a treaty from taking force or effect while they wait for the right body of government to ratify it.

You continue to miss the only point that is relevant. It doesn't matter what the treaty says, if it is contradictory to the U.S. Constitution, it does not and cannot apply to the U.S. In the United States, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, not International treaties.

You can continue to list provisions of the treaty all you want to to illustrate what you see as a horror story, but the fact is that the treaty explicitly says that it is not meant to interfere the internal law of the various states (nations), and even if it didn't say that explicitly, "an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law".

This not a difficult concept; it is not rocket science: the Constitution trumps a treaty.

reply to post by Panic2k11

It may require gun registration ( Arms Trade Treaty @wikipedia ).

Not if such provision is contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

Since most of Europe already has a personal ID card implemented there is less of a issue there (and to a point looking to international arms trade the treaty seems a good thing but fails to note that most nations constantly violate arms embargoes, economic embargoes etc when it suits them.

The treaty does NOT 'fail to note' that. That is the EXPLICIT justification for the treaty - to prevent such illicit weapons trade and provide a framework for tracking violations.

reply to post by jibeho

Yes, it would have to be ratified by Senate. I have recognized that point many times. However, in order to be ratified, Harry Reid the majority leader, would have to put it on the floor for a vote. Until that vote is called (could take years) the treaty is in effect unless rejected by POTUS and that will not happen.

No it would not be in effect (in the United States). The US has no obligation to abide by the treaty in any way until it has been ratified by the Senate. Even after ratification by the Senate, the U.S. does not have to actively pursue the provisions of the Treaty until the Treaty comes into force (which means the requisite number of Nations ratifying it) however it is obligated to not undermine the provisions of the treaty (for example by flooding the world with uncontrolled weapons).

And once again, it doesn't matter whether the Senate ratifies it or not and it goes into force or not. If part of the treaty is unconstitutional according to the US Constitution, that part is VOID in the US. End of story.

Originally posted by rnaa
This is a treaty about INTERNATIONAL GUN TRADE not personal gun ownership.

It is designed to curb gun running, not void the 2nd amendment.

What is this place coming to?

The motto here is "DENY IGNORANCE" not "FEIGN OUTRAGE".

Really now....

If our Government was really worried about curbing gun running....How can you explain Fast and Furious?!?

reply to post by rnaa


We are treading on a very slippery slope..

Consider that three of our Supreme Court Justices have now said that they will take into consideration the laws of other countries when making decisions on this countries laws. These Justices are all members of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations).

Safe to say that our supreme court has been less than consistent over the years.

Why I never became a lawyer...

TREATIES AS LAW OF THE LAND: THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE AND THE JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF TREATIES

This Article has argued that the Constitution establishes a straight- forward rule regarding the judicial enforcement of treaties. By declaring treaties to have the force of law, the Supremacy Clause makes them enforceable in the courts in the same circumstances as statutory and constitutional provisions of like content.

The Founders under- stood that treaties were contracts between nations that, on the interna- tional plane, depended on interest and honor for their efficacy. In or- der to avoid international friction that might lead to war and to capture the benefits of a reputation for treaty compliance, they made treaties enforceable in our courts as a matter of domestic constitutional law. The single exception to the requirement of equivalent treatment concerns treaties that are non-self-executing in the sense contemplated by Foster v. Neilson. The Court’s subsequent decision in United States v. Percheman is best read to have recognized a presumption that treaties are self-executing in this sense, rebuttable by a clear statement in the treaty that the obligations imposed by the treaty are subject to legislative implementation. The recent decision in Medellín v. Texas is best understood as an example of an entirely different kind of non-self-execution. With respect to bilateral treaties, the Percheman clear statement rule leaves matters largely within the control of the U.S. treatymakers

www.harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/vazquez.pdf

Looks like we have a development

Senate votes 53-46 to stop US from joining UN Arms Trade Treaty..
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let's see where this goes from here... Should be interesting as system is about to get stretched to its limit...

reply to post by rnaa


Gun registration is to my understanding not contrary to US constitution (even if I fully understand the validity of opposing such a registry, even ID card setup like most of Europe has).

The treaty does NOT 'fail to note' that. That is the EXPLICIT justification for the treaty - to prevent such illicit weapons trade and provide a framework for tracking violations.

No it isn't, in fact trade only becomes illicit after violation of the treaty (or other international or national laws), the treaty serves primarily to monitor trade and secure the distribution channels.

Originally posted by jibeho
Looks like we have a development

Senate votes 53-46 to stop US from joining UN Arms Trade Treaty..
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let's see where this goes from here... Should be interesting as system is about to get stretched to its limit...

Not only was it defeated in the Senate:

thehill.com...

Patrick Leahy (D-VT) a brazenly proud socialist got an amendment APPROVED so no treaties will trump the constitution. Holy crap! Is this still planet earth? Read the link.

reply to post by jibeho

This Article has argued that the Constitution establishes a straight- forward rule regarding the judicial enforcement of treaties. By declaring treaties to have the force of law, the Supremacy Clause makes them enforceable in the courts in the same circumstances as statutory and constitutional provisions of like content.

Yes, absolutely. Enforceable exactly like any other law passed by Congress and subject to the Constitution exactly like any other law. The U.S. Constitution is not and cannot be overridden by an international treaty.

You are really getting ridiculous trying to keep up this argument.

reply to post by tkwasny

Not only was it defeated in the Senate:

thehill.com...

Patrick Leahy (D-VT) a brazenly proud socialist got an amendment APPROVED so no treaties will trump the constitution. Holy crap! Is this still planet earth? Read the link.

As I read that article, Leahy was trying to placate the opponents of the treaty by emphasizing that treaties don't trump the Constitution. This is already the case, and Leahy's amendment is totally redundant.

It would seem that certain vested interests have no more respect for the supremacy of the Constitution than our good friend jibeho and have put the fear of no money into their puppets. I expect the Senate to approve the treaty when it finally comes up for approval.

EDIT: I found a discussion of a similar 'amendment' that you may find interesting: Wikipedia: Bricker Amendment

The Bricker Amendment is the collective name of a series of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution considered by the United States Senate in the 1950s. These amendments would have placed restrictions on the scope and ratification of treaties and executive agreements entered into by the United States and are named for their sponsor, Senator John W. Bricker of Ohio, a conservative Republican.
...
Bricker's proposal attracted broad bipartisan support and was a focal point of intra-party conflict between the administration of president Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Old Right faction of conservative Republican senators. Despite the initial support, the Bricker Amendment was blocked through the intervention of President Eisenhower and failed in the Senate by a single vote in 1954. Three years later the Supreme Court of the United States explicitly ruled in Reid v. Covert that the Bill of Rights cannot be abrogated by agreements with foreign powers. Nevertheless, Senator Bricker's ideas still have supporters, and new versions of his amendment have been reintroduced in Congress periodically.

The point being that such an amendment is redundant. The Constitution already makes it clear that treaties are inferior to the Constitution.

I can't for the life of me figure out why this is so hard to understand. I mean I can understand that Bricker may have been unsure, but after Reid v. Covert there is no doubt what-so-ever.

reply to post by jibeho


Please read the US Supreme Court decidion in the Head Money case. It specifically addresses the status of foreign treaties and places them below the US Constitution. It makes them a part of the Federal Body of Law, allowing Congress to modify, reject, add to treaties. It allows US courts to have jurisdiction when those treaties come into conflict with US Domestic Law / Foregn Policy / Civil Rights and it allows US citizens to challenge those treaties if affected.

This is not rocket science.. The precedent has been established by the Supreme Court itself and has been in place for over 100 years.

In this area there is no wiggle room for the current justices to overturn that ruling. If they did they would be required to explain how their ruling is constitutional when the Constitution itself is the Supreme Law of the Land. If they allowed a change, then it will open the legal flood gates for any state / group to pass their own laws that would be in violation of the Constitution.

There is no slippery slope on this one. Its a Sheer cliff face with no ability to gain a foot hold for the justices to climb over it.

Sit down and enjoy the view.

In certain parts of the US building inspectors on new builds are already inforcing united nation/international building codes. And it goes small to down to private dwellings, homes.

Originally posted by Logarock
In certain parts of the US building inspectors on new builds are already inforcing united nation/international building codes. And it goes small to down to private dwellings, homes.

edit on 24-3-2013 by Logarock because: n

none of which violate the US Constitution....

If we are to use this logic then we can remove law enforcement since we adopted that system from the United Kingdom.

We can throw advanced mathematics out the window since it came from the Middle East...

We can throw advanced construction methods in earth quake prone areas out the window since it came from Japan..

We can throw our space program out the window since it came from Germany...

Trying to base an argument on what's imported and its legality is almost futile when this country itself was founded on imported ideas from all corners of the planet.

What we are looking at, specifically, is how certain treaties run counter to the US Constitution. Anything not specifically granted to the Federal Government is reserved to the states. I don't see anything in the constitution dealing with building codes.

**as a side note if my response is coming across as me being an ass I apologize.. It was a long day at work and im tired but cant sleep**

It's happening now - While Senator Ted Cruz fights physical exhaustion to stop a measure which many people believe will be the death knell of this country. Well here comes round two.

Kerry signs UN arms treaty, senators threaten to block it
www.foxnews.com...

Wake up people please while we still have a chance at retaining something that resembles America