Senate votes 53-46 to stop US from joining UN Arms Trade Treaty......And That's All There is to It?

reply to post by seabag


Loved the poster! Hadn't seen that one before, and I'll be shipping it off to all my friends! Unfortunately for us, most of those have fallen already....

reply to post by Robonakka

Where do you get that treaties do not supersede the constitution? From the way I read it, they certainly do.

You read it wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

Please review The Head Money Cases

Wikipedia: Head Money Cases has a succinct summary with respect to the effect of treaties here:

The Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580 (1884)[1], were the subject of an important United States Supreme Court decision. They were decided on December 8, 1884. The case established the precedent that treaties, which are described in the United States Constitution as "the supreme law of the land," nonetheless do not hold a privileged position above other acts of Congress, and other laws affecting "its enforcement, modification, or repeal" are legitimate.

The other important case regarding the efficacy of treaties under the Constitution can be found in Reid v. Covert. The money quotes from this case are:

"this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty,"

and

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

The Constitution trumps a treaty. Any treaty. Every time.

Please respect the U.S. Constitution, it is a marvelous document, and understanding it better would enhance the reception on your BS meter so you wouldn't fall prey to charlatan fear mongers quite so much.

Here is a discussion of the treaty put in its U.S. Constitutional perspective: OxFam: The Truth about the Arms Trade Treaty

reply to post by rnaa



I have not idea what in the heck you are talking about, perhaps you need to take more time on reading the post before posting what you obviously have no idea what talking about specially my post, unless you are mistaking me for another posters.

I think it is a great thing that we stopped this tyranny. The last thing we needed was another limit on our liberties.

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by coltcall

 

I have never purchased a gun from a private individual and it hasn't hurt me yet.
I'm cool with the background checks.

Well since it doesn't affect you then the heck with everyone else. The above statement is exactly what is wrong with our supposedly free country. It is at the heart of how you chip away a little at a time at the freedoms some of us hold dear. I don't smoke so tax cigarettes. I don't drink so tax alcohol. I don't drive so add a gas tax. Sick.

Screw the UN and its bullcrap

reply to post by marg6043

I have not idea what in the heck you are talking about, perhaps you need to take more time on reading the post before posting what you obviously have no idea what talking about specially my post, unless you are mistaking me for another posters.

I don't believe I have mistaken you for anyone, and I understand exactly what you wrote.

While you agreed that a treaty is subordinate to the Constitution and any conflicts will be cleared up in favor of the Constitution, you went on to attack duly elected U.S. Senators, doing their job and honoring their oaths to protect the Constitution, as 'anti constitution whores'.

In fact it those Senators that voted against this bill were doing so to protect the Constitution for two reasons:

First, the bill, to the extent that it seeks to ensure that such a treaty will not be used to usurp the Constitution is completely and 100% redundant. No treaty can usurp the Constitution, as you agree. Passing laws to 'clear up' Constitutional misunderstandings is pointless and dangerous. Especially when there is, in fact, no misunderstanding, merely rumor mongering propaganda from vested interests who have an explicit agenda to keep you scared and your personal BS meter confused.

Second, the Constitution give the power to negotiate treaties to the President, and the power to ratify those treaties to the Senate. To the extent that the bill seeks to prevent the President from negotiating a treaty it is itself an unconstitutional attempt to usurp the separation of powers.

By the way, this was not a vote against the treaty, the treaty has not yet been finalized, the US has not signed it, and it has not been submitted to the Senate for approval. This was a vote against NEGOTIATING the treaty - and that makes it unconstitutional. If anyone is 'anti Constitutional' it is the Senators that voted FOR this bill.

So I was merely suggesting that you learn more about the Constitution in order to save you from the embarrassment of calling people who are doing their jobs properly nasty names. It really isn't a pretty sight when you do that.

This treaty is a INTERNATIONAL trade treaty. It has nothing to do with domestic trade in the United States or any other nation - as the draft text makes abundantly clear by the way.

Here is a good editorial on the treaty from Oxfam: Why we need a global Arms Trade Treaty

reply to post by LibertysTeeth

I think it is a great thing that we stopped this tyranny. The last thing we needed was another limit on our liberties.

Unless you are an international arms dealer, there is nothing in this treaty that will limit your liberties in any way what-so-ever.

If you are an international arms dealer, you will still have more liberty to pursue your calling than an international banana dealer or an international telephone dealer.

Anyone who thinks We the People can fight The Man with guns is irrationally optimistic or delusional. It is exactly how to NOT fight him. He will win that fight every time. How smart to you have to be to understand that you do not fight someone TO their strength? Do you run up like a Palestinian child and throw rocks at the DHS tank? Will you win a Waco or Ruby Ridge style standoff? Will your neighbours run out to stand by your side as the storm troopers (your OTHER neighbours) surround your house and mow you down? Silliness. But there is another way. It is easier and it is actually possible - opt out. That's it. Turn off the TV, Don't borrow money. Don't eat at McDonald’s. Eat the grain, not the meat. Don't hide behind your cell phone. Don't rush out to buy the newest model year of that same old car. Don’t take on that college debt. Don't condemn your neighbours for looking different or for not having a lawn full of chemicals. It's so simple. Look around. Find what is toxic and harmful - and don't do that. We don't need an armed revolution. Those NEVER work. We need to change our own minds and behaviours and make them more healthy and compassionate. Nothing else works, and nothing else works as well. I mean, at some point someone has gotta say "No" to all the stupid crap ( iWatch anyone? ) they shove at us. Hundred and fifty bucks for sneakers?!?! Come on! Like Nancy Reagan said - Just Say No." If that sounds too radical and weird, then WTF, how do you even rationally consider an armed resistance? Look around. Who among the faces you see on the street is capable of putting up anything like a realistic opposition? Do you see tactical geniuses walking the streets waiting to jump to your aid when it will cost them their job? Hell, the people around you won't even slow down a bit for you when you are walking the street after dinner with your wife. They zoom by you as if you were a plant and they enjoy it. If you try a violent opposition they will watch you burn and then point at the TV news story afterwards and talk about how weird you were and how sad it is for your kids that you are never coming back. Better to do it my way I think.

reply to post by MarsSentinel


It's not so much about fighting 'The Man' as it is about fighting the criminal element that socialism creates.

You know. The street criminals on welfare trying to augment their monthly checks with burglary and stuff.

reply to post by rnaa


My believes about the politicians I call whores are the believes that have taken me 52 years and 6 presidents and their policies and crap that has taken this nation to the point it is right now affecting all of us that are in the class of working tax payers.

Thanks for the "lesson" in constitutional law and I while appreciate your knowledge and your "inside" in the subject but I will keep my opinion as it is right now as an America citizen living in the US, a voter and tax payer.

I love my constitution and the rights it gives me and my fellow countrymen, but I dislike the way our political system has fallen in the hands of crocks, corruption and private foreign and domestic interest.

And no an arms treaty, is never going to fly with the US private interest in the arms dealing agendas US already have with foreign nations be legal and illegal.

Sadly any "treaty" have the potential to conflict with the US constitutional rights to arms, because the wording of such treaties is no define enough to protect such rights that is why US can not and should not be part of such treaties, so that is why I say that any politicians that can vote in treaties that do not define or can possible infringe in the US Constitution should never be passed and I call them whores as many of the politicians in this nation never gets to read the laws that most of them pass

And that is the end of the story, beside the NRA-opposed arms trade treaty as it is right now due to posible conflicts with our laws.

reply to post by marg6043


Picky stuff first:

My believes about the politicians I call whores are the believes that have taken me 52 years and 6 presidents

I count 10 Presidents in the last 52 years. 11 if you were born before January 20. I have been alive 62 years and seen 1 President go, 10 come and go, and 1 come - 12 altogether.

Thanks for the "lesson" in constitutional law and I while appreciate your knowledge and your "inside" in the subject but I will keep my opinion as it is right now as an America citizen living in the US, a voter and tax payer.

I too am an American citizen, a voter, and a tax payer. I happen to live in Australia at the moment. I don't have inside knowledge, I have the ability to read and understand what I am reading. I learned about the Constitution in school in the United States back when they used to teach that stuff. I was under the impression that they still taught it when you would have been in school too. Perhaps I am wrong about that.

I love my constitution and the rights it gives me and my fellow countrymen, but I dislike the way our political system has fallen in the hands of crocks, corruption and private foreign and domestic interest.

Me too.

And now the more 'heavy' stuff.

And no an arms treaty, is never going to fly with the US private interest in the arms dealing agendas US already have with foreign nations be legal and illegal.

That is possibly true. The arms dealers have their arms so far up the backsides of politicians that it will be very hard to get this done properly.

Sadly any "treaty" have the potential to conflict with the US constitutional rights to arms, because the wording of such treaties is no define enough to protect such rights that is why US can not and should not be part of such treaties,

But you go off the rails there, because, as you said earlier, the Constitution superior to any treaty. It doesn't matter how the treaty is worded, it CANNOT get around the fact the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the treaty is not.

so that is why I say that any politicians that can vote in treaties that do not define or can possible infringe in the US Constitution should never be passed and I call them whores as many of the politicians in this nation never gets to read the laws that most of them pass

That is a bit of a word salad there, and I'm not 100% confident that I know exactly what you think you said. But if I interpret you correctly, you are saying that the politician that voted against this bill are whores because by voting against it they were attacking the Constitution. This is the error I am trying to correct.

Remember that this was not a bill to ratify the treaty. It was a bill to stop negotiating the treaty. You accuse the Senators of not reading the bills they vote on, but you haven't made any attempt to understand what is at stake either, you are just parroting what you have heard. Knee jerk reactions are seldom effective.

In fact, by voting against this 'stop negotiating' bill, those Senators were voting to UPHOLD the Separation of Powers as designed into the Constitution. You have got it backwards, and you have it backwards because...

And that is the end of the story, beside the NRA-opposed arms trade treaty as it is right now due to posible conflicts with our laws.

Exactly. The NRA is lying to you. Its what they do and they are good at it. They have been doing it ever since the coup 30 years ago that transformed them from a Hunters lobby group into a Gun Manufacturers lobby group.

They are lying to you when they told you it was a bill that would stop the treaty. It won't.
They are lying to you when they tell you the treaty can override the Constitution. It can't.

It is really just that simple. The NRA and the Arms Manufacturers OWN those Senators that voted for that unconstitutional bill the other day. The Senators that voted FOR the bill are the ones who are the anti-constitutional whores.

reply to post by rnaa


Sorry but we got a difference of opinions I disagree with you respectfully and that is that, while I can see you point of view I have research in how this arms treaty can become a danger to the US constitution with the anti gun whores in Washington.

The UN Arms Trade Treaty & Our Constitution’s Loophole

iapcar.org...

What scares me the most is how close the vote was!
53-46.

46 members actually voted to allow us to enter into this treaty?

That is the scariest part.