DOJ Says UN Arms Treaty Trumps US Constitution

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Riffrafter

 

Hmm... Good point. In either case, he is a huge danger to our country and its established institutions.

Agreed.

And I know what you meant in your original post. I just thought it was worth remembering that it's isn't the idiots like Cruz we need to be worried about. It's the really smart, really devious, really influential folks that present the greatest danger to this country.

And we need to watch them like hawks...

Informed knowledge is our best defense.

Well, ATS too when it's working properly...

Astyanax
reply to post by Hillbilly123069

 

I'm sure it sounds like treason to a hillbilly.

If your country is a signature to an international convention, it is so bound. If the convention is in conflict with your constitution, you must change your constitution.

Enough of this childish exceptionalism.

Negative, young constitutionally illiterate sir!

Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution.

Link

Article IV of the US Constitution says:

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Note the phrase "under the authority of the United States". The authority for adherence to this treaty is specifically denied by Amendment II of the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, in the very first sentence of Article IV, it is specified that the laws implementing treaty provisions must be made in pursuance of the Constitution. That means that they cannot violate the Constitution.

If that's not enough, Article II of the US Constitution requires any treaty made by the executive to be ratified by a 2/3 majority of the Senate, which this one has not been.

No, young sir. They can bite my hillbilly ass.

They're not going to try to take the guns. They don't need to take the guns.

They have seen, quite clearly and plainly and repeatedly, that people having guns doesn't in any single way interfere with their plans. At all.

So they won't bother trying to take them, they provide a useful illusionary crutch against tyranny.

buster2010
This treaty will change no laws here in the states. Cruz is just running his mouth without checking any facts.

Right.

And under Obamacare, if you like your current insurance, you can keep it (unless it gets cancelled like a million policies have been since attempted implementation).

And under Obamacare, you can keep your current doctor (unless Obamacare forces him out of business, which it is currently doing in droves).

And under Obamacare, health insurance premiums won't rise (unless they do, which they have by a massive amount).

So under this treaty, no laws here in the states will be changed.

Unless they are.

Question: if it changes no laws, why bother signing it?

Looks like an agenda to me.

"It's a TRAP!"

Having read the article, the following can be stated:

Before we get into the crux of the matter, about Eric Holder and the department of Justice, we should consider that this is not as simple as what many people would believe it to be. If you read the laws of the USA and what is written, then it becomes clear what all is going on and what they are going for.

The President can sign any document he wants, or any treaty he wants. There is nothing to say he cannot sign on any dotted line. After all he is a person and entitled to do such. But for it to be considered as either law or having an effect on the laws of the USA, it still requires the vote of the senate, some 2/3’s majority vote. And if the senate does not sign off on it, then it is not going to do anything.

What the DOJ is trying to do, is to open the legal door a crack, to get a precedent on the books as it were. Consider this if he can get one or 2 of the justices to agree, if not the entire court, then he would have the precedence to go back to the DOJ and use such as validity to take the next step. It is a nudge right now, after all slight nudge here, a bump here, and next thing you got is precedent to where it becomes law. All based off of one court case.

And right now we have to see if they are going to grant a writ of Centori.

Astyanax
reply to post by peter vlar

 

As for having to change the constitution because of a treaty... no. treaties don't alter the constitution, only a new amendment can do that and it takes a heck of a lot more effort than 2/3 of the Senate agreeing.

I'm sure it does. But if the American people (as represented by their government, as represented by John Kerry) sign an international treaty, are they not duty-bound to honour it? It would be a strange conception of honour that replied 'no' to that question.

No.

There, I said it.

Call me strange.

I am not bound to honor promises made by OTHER people, regardless of the claims they make that it is on my behalf. I can speak for myself, and make my own promises. If I make one, you can take it to the bank. I will keep it through hell or high water.

if John Kerry makes one, especially if he makes it in the face of congressional disapproval, it's on him to keep it.

MichaelPMaccabee
Now that everyone is good and mad, can someone link a quote from the DOJ making the statement that is claimed in the OP's linked blog post?

From my post on page one....

[url=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=bond%20vs%20the%20united%20states&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.co m%2Fcase-files%2Fcases%2Fbond-v-united-states-2%2F&ei=WnNzUqeCMJDlsATcuIH4Aw&usg=AFQjCNGgADA_Sa-0vh-7b2Z-OVwtYoHbMw&bvm=bv.55819444,d.cWc]SCOTUSBLOG[/ url]

Covers how the ACTUAL court case has been proceeding with links.

Astyanax
reply to post by Hillbilly123069

 

I'm sure it sounds like treason to a hillbilly.

If your country is a signature to an international convention, it is so bound. If the convention is in conflict with your constitution, you must change your constitution.

Enough of this childish exceptionalism.

Too funny

Even (some) state Constitution's state similar stuff about gun rights.

Besides, the supreme court wouldn't allow it....it's not like they were appointed by the president.

reply to post by Hillbilly123069


Please read up on your constitution folks. Article Six.
Especially all of you constitutional scholars. ;p

en.wikipedia.org...

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.

Certainly holder has a very valid point.
It's up to everyone here to inundate their congress person with calls. We need to reject this treaty.

reply to post by Hillbilly123069


This is the reason Ginsburg has been feeling a lot of pressure to exit lately. They would have blackmailed her ass out of their already, but they have nothing to use against her. She may perish before Obama's term is up.

Astyanax
reply to post by peter vlar

 

As for having to change the constitution because of a treaty... no. treaties don't alter the constitution, only a new amendment can do that and it takes a heck of a lot more effort than 2/3 of the Senate agreeing.

I'm sure it does. But if the American people (as represented by their government, as represented by John Kerry) sign an international treaty, are they not duty-bound to honour it? It would be a strange conception of honour that replied 'no' to that question. If the treaty is unconstitutional and it proves impossible to change the constitution, then the US should repudiate the treaty. Of course, as you point out, the consequences of that may be unpleasant.

And of course, as you also point out, this is really all about a bunch of political opportunists out for what capital they can make. The US can keep the treaty and its constitution without getting into a constitutional or ethical bind. But by the time the posturing bumpkins on their tea-chests as soapboxes are done, half the population of the USA won't know that.

In principle I agree with you. However, just because our Secretary of State signed the Treaty that is not the same as the US ratifying it. It doesn't become ratified until 66 Senators sign off on it. Until then its just a piece of paper endorsed by the Obama administration and Sec. State Kerry. I'm fairly certain it works in a similar fashion in other nations as well. The representative signs it and the treaty then is returned home to be reviewed and ratified by the governing bodies of those nations. The whole thing is just a song and dance of semantics while they weave their illusions of doing the right thing for us because obviously we're a nation of 330 million+ infants who can't even wipe our collective @sses without the help of the government.

Again, yes, just a whole lot of political posturing and theatrics. There really isn't a constitutional or international debate at all until the treaty is ratified. Until then I don't see how the DOJ could even make a case for this, in regards to the 2nd amendment. From everything I've read it really boils down to how the courts are trying to interpret a totally separate case involving the microbiologist, her ex and the ex's new lady friend and the release of chemical or biological agents. That case is the one that will set precedent in regards to how the federal government applies international treaties to its own citizens within American borders. It gets a little trickier when you get down to brass tacks figuring out the differences between state and federal laws, which ones are violated and who will prosecute them and to what extent. So in the end, this could certainly become a nightmare, just not in the sense that is implied in the OP

butcherguy
If this is true,
It is time to clean your guns, boys and girls.

Why would it be time to do that?

Are you suggesting that you think it is time that you are going to start killing people?

Why is everyone surprised that is either acting like this is news or some big deal ? many people know this, I have been saying this in numerous posts, if you keep up with the writings , publications of the United Nations and have read the U.N. charter, you have to realize that disarmament, as well as many other rules have always been one of their aims for all member nations, so why would the U.S. be immune? it is coming and you can be in denial, but be prepared.

Sovereignty is what we enjoy, it is what all nations feel they have a right to, but with the new changes under the NWO 's rise one has to question whether the ultimate goal is for the one world government, one world religion to have complete sovereignty over all people, which means the U.N. charter and associated rule of law will supercede any individual constitution and law.

Think about it, how can there be a one world government, NWO with individual sovereignty for nations remaining intact ?

Is it really possible?

reply to post by Astyanax


Make me.

butcherguy

MichaelPMaccabee
Now that everyone is good and mad, can someone link a quote from the DOJ making the statement that is claimed in the OP's linked blog post?

From my post on page one....

[url=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=bond%20vs%20the%20united%20states&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.co m%2Fcase-files%2Fcases%2Fbond-v-united-states-2%2F&ei=WnNzUqeCMJDlsATcuIH4Aw&usg=AFQjCNGgADA_Sa-0vh-7b2Z-OVwtYoHbMw&bvm=bv.55819444,d.cWc]SCOTUSBLOG[/ url]

Covers how the ACTUAL court case has been proceeding with links.

Yeah, I read all of that.

Nothing stating what was asserted in the blog post was mentioned. If I'm missing it, I would love a little help.

AlienScience

butcherguy
If this is true,
It is time to clean your guns, boys and girls.

Why would it be time to do that?

Are you suggesting that you think it is time that you are going to start killing people?

I didn't mention that.
Guns can have the effect of changing hearts and minds without being fired, much less killing people. You can see the effect when an armed police officer enters a room.

I say let them go for it. Jefferson said that the beauty of the second amendment is that it won't be needed until the government takes it away.

At which point the gloves come off for all those willing to go to that place where our nations founders were about 237 years ago.

Astyanax
reply to post by peter vlar

 

As for having to change the constitution because of a treaty... no. treaties don't alter the constitution, only a new amendment can do that and it takes a heck of a lot more effort than 2/3 of the Senate agreeing.

I'm sure it does. But if the American people (as represented by their government, as represented by John Kerry) sign an international treaty, are they not duty-bound to honour it?

just to point this out but this country is a republic, not a democracy. so no it doesn't matter if the majority of americans agreed to it, the mob doesn't rule here, the law rules here, because the mob has the tendency to abuse others and trample them underfoot(whether intentional or not).

Hillbilly123069
Oh this bites. You heard all of them in DC including Barry saying this would never happen. This is treason anyway you lok at it. You know Holder isn't doing anything without the hotline to the WH ringing first. Just my overall opinion , but we're screwed now.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Eric Holder thinks to pull a fast one on the American People.Eric Holder filed a law suit with the United States Supreme Court that says United Nations treaty trumps the US Constitution on laws in the United States.

FreePatriot

This is really simple. Charge him/them with treason.

It is ABSOLUTELY treasonous to try and supersede the constitution.

butcherguy

AlienScience

butcherguy
If this is true,
It is time to clean your guns, boys and girls.

Why would it be time to do that?

Are you suggesting that you think it is time that you are going to start killing people?

I didn't mention that.
Guns can have the effect of changing hearts and minds without being fired, much less killing people. You can see the effect when an armed police officer enters a room.

it could be argued that it's the legal power behind said gun and their position in society that changes their behavior, people don't change when they see a normal person whose armed because they know they can't get away with as much as police can, that they can be punished if they abuse the power of the gun, that they need more than their word to prove what they've done.