Nope. The President can do no such thing. The Congress makes the laws. An unratified treaty does not have the force of law in the US. Good luck with getting 2/3rds of the Senate on that one.i8godzilla wrote:Really?cheezit wrote:soory but no treaty can be inforced if its in direct violation of the constution
American Rifleman, Feb 2012, page 48, article title: Siege
"Of course, a treaty in itself cannot repeal the Second Amendment, but it can influence how courts interpret the Second Amendment. Further, to influence a court's decisions, a treaty need not even be ratified--U.S. courts, including the Supreme Court, have cited unratified treaties as well as treaties from other continents.
"The respective constitutions of many nations specify that international law is part of the nation's constitution. So regardless of U.S. Senate ratification, an ATT will become, in much of the rest of the world, a powerful club that will be used to destroy much of what remains of lawful gun ownership."
So, even without ratification, if the President decides to go against the Constitution, and sign an Arms Trade Treaty the harm is done. From Czars to in-session appointment that the courts have found unconstitutional this man has no boundaries nor any concern for the Constitution of the United States. He thumbs his nose at the recent court decision about the National Labor Relations Board his administration's EPA has tried to enforce the provisions of the unratified Kyoto Protocol.
Some of us question how this man ever taught Constitutional Law. However, I believe his vast knowledge of the U.S. Constitution allows him to exploit it and twist interpretations to fit his agenda. The recent leak of the DOJs rules for killing Americans without due process is another example.
If you do not have a trial then I guess you do not need a jury to convict and execute someone.Article III Section 2.3
3. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Obama did not write the recent DOJ rules for killing Americans..... That is only an opinion of the DOJ, BTW. It is certainly not settled law.
The trial of crimes is one thing, killing in an act of war is another. We laughed out loud at BJ Clinton, a much more gifted Constitutional scholar, if indeed either are, than BHO, for wanting to treat terrorists as criminals. Serve 'em with subpoenas.... haul them into court! That'll teach 'em!
Under the interpretation of some I have read recently, all that is necessary for an Al Quaida group to neutralize American military power is to always have a US citizen present, who cannot knowingly be killed without due process.