You Have Been Warned: Obama Can Sign 2nd Amendment Rights Away

[bigrebnc1775]

Really? You said a mouthful without the slightest referance to what you are talking about. Just hot button words. Legal train of thoughts. U.N. Treaty's. Supercede Constitutional Protections. 2nd Amendment.

OK, who's legal train of thoughts? What UN Treaty's? And since when does UN Treaty's supercede the US Constitution?

Say what you mean, man, don't just hide behind a bunch of hot button words for the ignorant. How about some links?

They use the Supremecy Clause of the Constitution,

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.

That by signing a U.N. treaty that would ban private ownership of firearms, and getting the Senate to ratify it, they could nullify the 2nd Amendment without having to amend the Constitution.

While I don't think that would work, there have been several left wing lawyer types I have talked to on other boards that beleive it would work.

Article VI doesn't nullify Article V, though.

And I don't believe our Senate would ratify such an imaginary treaty.

Sorry, Reb, it's just a bunch of "if this" "and this" "then this happens" stuff.

You might be right if the constitution hadn't been side step on other issues.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

For some people, just saying something makes it true.

bigrebnc1775 is one of those people.

I don't believe obama, but you do. I don't believe MSM but you do, just saying something isn't true doesn't make it so

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb, you are assuming the President signs a treaty and then gets 2/3rds of the Senate to approve it.

That is not side stepping anything: that is Constitutional. Such treaty language becomes American law.

Do you really think 2/3rds of the Senate is going to invalidate the 2nd Amendment?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Obama can't just waive a magic wand to "takeeeeeeee yuuuurrrrrrrrrrr gunnnnnnnnzz!"

The right wing propaganda machine will keep lying about it, but that doesn't make it true.

I love it "obama can't do shit" argument, Since when has the constitution stop him from doing anything?

EXACTLY what has President Obama done that the SCOTUS as found to be unconstitutional?

No, I don't mean something the nutters say is unconstitutional.

I mean the real thing.

That's a catch 22 comment obamacare was found unconstitutional
his war effort in Libya hasn't went before the supreme court, but it is unconstitutional.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb, you are assuming the President signs a treaty and then gets 2/3rds of the Senate to approve it.

That is not side stepping anything: that is Constitutional. Such treaty language becomes American law.

Do you really think 2/3rds of the Senate is going to invalidate the 2nd Amendment?

I'm through talking too you liar.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not by SCOTUS.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb, you are assuming the President signs a treaty and then gets 2/3rds of the Senate to approve it.

That is not side stepping anything: that is Constitutional. Such treaty language becomes American law.

Do you really think 2/3rds of the Senate is going to invalidate the 2nd Amendment?

I'm through talking too you liar.

You lie on me as you did in two threads recently, and, yes, I will kick your ass HARD.

What I have said above is the truth, and you can't change that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I can't see the video on this computer, but there is a legal train of thought that if Obama signs certain U.N. treatys and the Senate approves them, they could supercede the Constitutional protections of the 2nd Amendment.

Really? You said a mouthful without the slightest referance to what you are talking about. Just hot button words. Legal train of thoughts. U.N. Treaty's. Supercede Constitutional Protections. 2nd Amendment.

OK, who's legal train of thoughts? What UN Treaty's? And since when does UN Treaty's supercede the US Constitution?

Say what you mean, man, don't just hide behind a bunch of hot button words for the ignorant. How about some links?

They use the Supremecy Clause of the Constitution,

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.

That by signing a U.N. treaty that would ban private ownership of firearms, and getting the Senate to ratify it, they could nullify the 2nd Amendment without having to amend the Constitution.

While I don't think that would work, there have been several left wing lawyer types I have talked to on other boards that beleive it would work.

This is one of the more ignorant and shameful lies propagated by the right:

The United Nations voted late Christmas Eve to once again take up a global arms trade treaty in March. The treaty would regulate global weapons exports and have no effect on domestic gun laws. Still, the US failed to ratify it in July, mainly due to conspiracy theories advanced by conservatives, former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and the National Rifle Association that suggested the U.N. would revoke American gun rights.

Member states will try to negotiate an agreement at a conference from March 18-28. But American resistance to the treaty has little basis in fact. NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre claimed in July that the U.N. was infringing on Americans’ right to bear arms and refused to support any treaty involving civilian gun ownership.

Far from touching Second Amendment rights, the treaty seeks to control the $60 billion illicit weapons trade that has helped along some of the worst human rights violations in history, and continues to kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. The Associated Press explains:

Many countries, including the United States, control arms exports but there has never been an international treaty regulating the estimated $60 billion global arms trade. For more than a decade, activists and some governments have been pushing for international rules to try to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime.

The treaty also specifically acknowledges that domestic constitutional protections for arms owners would be unchanged.

U.N. To Reconsider Arms Trade Treaty Blocked By NRA Conspiracy Theories | ThinkProgress

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb, you are assuming the President signs a treaty and then gets 2/3rds of the Senate to approve it.

That is not side stepping anything: that is Constitutional. Such treaty language becomes American law.

Do you really think 2/3rds of the Senate is going to invalidate the 2nd Amendment?

I'm through talking too you liar.

You lie on me as you did in two threads recently, and, yes, I will kick your ass HARD.

What I have said above is the truth, and you can't change that.

You are a lying sack of shit.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Someone needs to fix their "e" and "d" keys.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm through talking too you liar.

You lie on me as you did in two threads recently, and, yes, I will kick your ass HARD.

What I have said above is the truth, and you can't change that.

You are a lying sack of shit.

Yes, you do lie. Obama cannot get 2/3rds of the Senate to do such a thing: that is a lie.

You lied on me and were outed by the folks you counted on.

Sux to be you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You lie on me as you did in two threads recently, and, yes, I will kick your ass HARD.

What I have said above is the truth, and you can't change that.

You are a lying sack of shit.

Yes, you do lie. Obama cannot get 2/3rds of the Senate to do such a thing: that is a lie.

You lied on me and were outed by the folks you counted on.

Sux to be you.

Coward lying sack of shit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stop the trolling, rebtroll.

Obama cannot get 2/3rds of the Senate to do such a thing: that is a lie.

You lied on me and were outed by the folks you counted on.

Sux to be you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Stop the trolling, rebtroll.

Obama cannot get 2/3rds of the Senate to do such a thing: that is a lie.

You lied on me and were outed by the folks you counted on.

Sux to be you.

Lying sack of shit coward.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama won't sign such a treaty and the Senate won't approve such a treaty and you continue to get caught in your lies and it sux to be you.

Oh by the way: yet another thread of yours pwnd and fail.

 

[Zona]

Fear mongering at its finest.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Fear mongering at its finest.

I hope you're right.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The Oathkeepers will start firing on the UN if they try to override of sovereignty. Then many other soldiers will follow them in resisting the UN.

The military takes an oath to the Constitution of the United States, not the sovereignty of the UN.

 

[legaleagle_45]

A treaty can not violate the Constitution. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957): "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 case involved an international agreement which provided for the trial of non military US Citizens abroad in military courts under the auspices of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, thereby violating portions of the 5th and 6th amendment. ... Covert was the wife of a US serviceman who was convicted in a military court of murdering her husband. The military court jurisdiction was premised upon an international agreement which allowed US military Courts to have jurisdiction over criminal acts of the dependants of servicemen stationed overseas.

The supremacy clause reads as follows:

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

The simple answer is the US Government does not have authority to violate the Constitution and therefore any treaty which violates the Constitution is not one made "under the authority" of the US. What a treaty can do is to "expand" the power of the United States beyond those enumerated powers found in the Constitution. I put quotations marks upon "expand" because this is a misnomer. The treaty power is an express power. The case which exemplifies this concept is Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) In 1918 the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was implemented to enforce the terms of treaty with Canada protecting migratory water fowl. Wild animals had traditionally been the subject of exclusive state jurisdiction, however and because the protection of migratory water fowl was a real matter of international interest, the treaty power could be employed so as to allow the extension of federal power into this area.

The limitations on this treaty power are generally as follows:

1.) It must not otherwise violate the Constitution; and,
2.) It must be a matter of legitimate international concern.

There is an order of priority to laws which is as follows:

1.) The Constitution trumps everything.
2.) US laws and treaties have equal priority subordinate to the Constitution. In the event of conflict between laws and treaties, the rule "last in time, first in right" prevails. In other words a US law passed in 2013 will defeat a US Treaty passed in 2012.
3.) State Constitutions
4.) State Laws.


What is quite clear and not subject to any real legal dispute is that not treaty can violate the 2nd Amend... or the 1st Amend or any other portion of the Bill of Rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Oathkeepers will start firing on the UN if they try to override of sovereignty. Then many other soldiers will follow them in resisting the UN.

The military takes an oath to the Constitution of the United States, not the sovereignty of the UN.

Sigh.