Treaty Too Quiet

[tommyg]

The Obama administration has been too quiet about the Dreaded UN treaty on small arms. The treaty is coming back
for discussion at the United Nations next month. Obama does not want to take our guns away.. He wants to set it
up for the United Nations to take them then Obama can say that international law takes precedence over the constitution.
Now Obama did not violate the Constitution he just followed international Law. By following international Law Obama
can save our country from being declared a rouge nation by the U.N. The Constitution and all the rights it gives us will be history

[cheezit]

soory but no treaty can be inforced if its in direct violation of the constution

[tommyg]

All it takes one more Obama Supreme Court appointment to fix the constitution so that it won't be a direct violation
Then turn your guns to the local collector and get a receipt for them

[texanjoker]

hypothetically, he signs the treaty, 2/3 of the senate ratifies it, and it becomes law, over riding the 2nd. very scary!

[i8godzilla]

soory but no treaty can be inforced if its in direct violation of the constution

Really?

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.

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.

If you do not have a trial then I guess you do not need a jury to convict and execute someone.

[JALLEN]

soory but no treaty can be inforced if its in direct violation of the constution

Really?

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.

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.

If you do not have a trial then I guess you do not need a jury to convict and execute someone.

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.

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.

[67SS]

the UN small arms treaty is for export only.... I have read the entire proposal, twice...... it limits gun and ammo exports.. in other words... I cant broker guns to Iraq even if I had a deal all lined up.. but I could act as a go between with Iraq and a licensed dealer for export as a third party with Iraq even with the treaty in place ..

the UN treaty hopes to remove blackmarket dealers and smugglers.. thats all

[The Annoyed Man]

The Obama administration has been too quiet about the Dreaded UN treaty on small arms. The treaty is coming back
for discussion at the United Nations next month. Obama does not want to take our guns away.. He wants to set it
up for the United Nations to take them then Obama can say that international law takes precedence over the constitution.
Now Obama did not violate the Constitution he just followed international Law. By following international Law Obama
can save our country from being declared a rouge nation by the U.N. The Constitution and all the rights it gives us will be history

I don't care what he does....I'm not wearing any rouge.

Obama can't do squat without 67 senators voting to ratify the treaty. They can't even get 51 senators to pass an AWB. They won't be getting 67 to ratify a treaty giving the U.N. sovereignty over U.S. gun rights. They'd never get the chance to complete their terms in off office before Senators who voted for it started turning up with lower than normal body temperatures.

[jmra]

The Obama administration has been too quiet about the Dreaded UN treaty on small arms. The treaty is coming back
for discussion at the United Nations next month. Obama does not want to take our guns away.. He wants to set it
up for the United Nations to take them then Obama can say that international law takes precedence over the constitution.
Now Obama did not violate the Constitution he just followed international Law. By following international Law Obama
can save our country from being declared a rouge nation by the U.N. The Constitution and all the rights it gives us will be history

I don't care what he does....I'm not wearing any rouge.

Obama can't do squat without 67 senators voting to ratify the treaty. They can't even get 51 senators to pass an AWB. They won't be getting 67 to ratify a treaty giving the U.N. sovereignty over U.S. gun rights. They'd never get the chance to complete their terms in off office before Senators who voted for it started turning up with lower than normal body temperatures.

I thought most of them were cold blooded anyway.

[Taurus.40]

Just how well does the UN think taking guns from an estimated 80 million people would go over? My guess is it would go over like some dooky in a punch bowl. There more American that live by the Constitution then any of the gun-grabbers give us credit for.

[anygunanywhere]

soory but no treaty can be inforced if its in direct violation of the constution

Right. You told them. They will flat out obey the constitution now that you said your piece.

I am so glad you stepped up to the plate.

Since you addressed this in such a firm manner why not take care of a few other things like the economy or killing of US citizens with drone strikes.

Maybe double enforce the meaning of the second amendment.

I feel better now.

Anygunanywhere

[chasfm11]

So what about the Kyoto treaty? The US, under George Bush, never signed it. The Senate never ratified it. And how many of the provisions of that treaty are being implemented in the US today?

The Constitution is a speed limit sign to this President and much of Congress on both sides of the isle. It can be conveniently ignored when they "are trying to get something done." I'm not exactly sure what weasel words will be used when the provisions of the UN small arms treaty are being put into place but I'm sure that the bottom line will be "we have to do this because the UN said so.,"

[67SS]

killing of US citizens with drone strikes.


I feel better now.

Anygunanywhere

I blame the parents of the kid, for sending the kid to a known terrorist , in a known war zone...

If ANY U.S. citizen knowingly collaborates with enemies of the USA they are equal targets... I dont understand all the up roar.... they are the enemy... and if a innocent is killed, its called collateral damage...

it happens in every war... GET OVER IT... I am so sick and tired of people wanting it both ways... bull feathers.... its war people .... and things die.. everything dies in its path... you dont want dead? stay out of the path....

to bad... 14 year old kid is pink mist... well.... dont send your kids to a war zone, dont send your kid to grandpaw terrorist for indoctrination...

No I have no sympathy for the family or the kid or any former U.S. citizen that proclaims allegiance against the USA.. frackem, fragem, chootem.

I think it was 1959 a man who denounced the USA so many times... he was stripped of his citizenship place on a cargo ship with orders he was never to set foot on U.S. soil again.. he also never set foot on anyone else's soil either.. he truly was a man with out a country... and I found it fitting.

wheres Joe McCarthy when ya need him...

[VMI77]

killing of US citizens with drone strikes.


I feel better now.

Anygunanywhere

I blame the parents of the kid, for sending the kid to a known terrorist , in a known war zone...

If ANY U.S. citizen knowingly collaborates with enemies of the USA they are equal targets... I dont understand all the up roar.... they are the enemy... and if a innocent is killed, its called collateral damage...

it happens in every war... GET OVER IT... I am so sick and tired of people wanting it both ways... bull feathers.... its war biotches .... and things die.. everything dies in its path... you dont want dead? stay out of the path....

to bad... 14 year old kid is pink mist... well.... dont send your kids to a war zone, dont send your kid to grandpaw terrorist for indoctrination...

No I have no sympathy for the family or the kid or any former U.S. citizen that proclaims allegiance against the USA.. frackem, fragem, chootem.

I think it was 1959 a man who denounced the USA so many times... he was stripped of his citizenship place on a cargo ship with orders he was never to set foot on U.S. soil again.. he also never set foot on anyone else's soil either.. he truly was a man with out a country... and I found it fitting.

wheres Joe McCarthy when ya need him...

The uproar is for two reasons: 1) it clearly violates the Constitution. If you don't like that, go through the process to change the Constitution....the same thing we tell the antis about the 2nd Amendment; and 2) all your rhetoric is meaningless...for instance, under the "rules" so far posted, there is no requirement for a US citizen to "knowingly collaborate with enemies of the US." Furthermore, there is no requirement for the killing to be in a "war zone." We're not at war with Yemen BTW. But that's not why your rhetoric is meaningless. It's meaningless because all that is needed by the Obama rules to kill an American is the assertion by a member of the Obama administration, without supporting evidence, that an American is a "terrorist" or "associated" in some undefined way with a "terrorist." The is no way for the person targeted to challenge the assertion. I guess you believe everyone on the no fly list deserves to be there, that the government never gets things wrong, and never makes mistakes? Furthermore, there is no review by a neutral party, and there is no accountability. Opps, ha ha ha....turns out we got the names mixed up and so and so really wasn't the guy we thought.....better luck next time. And wow, if some 10 year old's, or some 16 year old's father, says he hates the US and wants to destroy it, you think Obama should be able to kill his children? In my America we don't kill the children for the sins of the father.

[67SS]

Man... So many points you way off on... Sins of the father... Better look to wwII... WE KILLED SO MAY CIVILIANS IT STINKS..
IN BOTH GERMANY AND JAPAN... I never said we were at war with Yemen. I said yemen is a war zone.... You had better read your history about treasonous and collaborations.... In a time of war...as far as obama and this drone policy... Gw was the one who brought this policy to light of day.... Your America... It must be wonderful to live in Your utopi America....

PS... your going to refute that September 2011 drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki was a breach of constitutional law?.....are you really that naive?

Al-Awlaki was a cleric who was born in New Mexico and once preached at an Islamic center in Falls Church, Va. His sermons in English are posted all over the Internet and his name has been associated with several attempted terrorist attacks. The Justice Department has said that a Nigerian man who tried to blow up an international flight on Christmas 2009 told FBI agents that his mission was approved after a three-day visit with al-Awlaki.s

my heart bleeds.... not.