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

[Zona]

Fear mongering at its finest.

I hope you're right.

I was told he.was.taken her gunz in 04. Now, same shit. Meanwhile.nothing happens.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

There are so many loopholes that have been created obama will find away around those protected rights.

 

[zeke]

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.

Bigrebbie. Much better if you stick your fingers in your ears and shout;
nanananabooboo I can't hear you.
Much better.

rebbie, don't you hate it when your friends don't even agree with you?
Just do the following when that happens.

nanananabooboo I can't hear you. Thank god.

 

[editec]

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.

YES IT DOES.

It becomes law which is then subject to review for constitutionality by the SCOTUS. Should the SCOTUS find that the law fails to be constitutional, then the law is negated.

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

No, I do not.

I WOULD like somebody to post the language of this treaty to prove to me that this is even an issue.

If they cannot do it, then why should anyone believe them?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The concern manifests itself in a wild one-world conspiracy taken to heart by certain gun-nut reactionary small, poorly organized groups of Americans.

These nutters will continue to be watched by their neighbors and informed on by insiders.

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

Obama is just looking for any excuse to close gunshops.

We'll have to take him to court to get them reopened and guess who will pay for all of this.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mud, can you give us an absolute statement "Obama is just looking" to take away peoples' guns?