TexasCHLforum.com

But, in what could be an end run around our Constitution, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), fully aware that he can't possibly win the necessary two-thirds majority of votes in the Senate for ratification, may not allow any vote at all. Thus, Obama could sign the treaty and ignore the constitutional mandate, as he habitually does when Rule of Law interferes with his political agenda.

Then what?

Right2Carry wrote:If I am not mistaken the Supreme Court has ruled several times that treaties cannot undermine the rights granted by the US Constitution. I don't have time to research it at the moment. No treaty can ever supersede the US Constitution.

“In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract—when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract, before it can become a rule for the Court.”

Right2Carry wrote:In the landmark case Reid v Covert, the Court ruled”…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.”

When Is a Treaty Self-Executing.—Several references have been made above to a distinction between treaties as self-executing and as merely executory, in which case they are enforceable only after the enactment of “legislation to carry them into effect.”23 But what is it about a treaty that makes it the law of the land and which gives a private litigant the right to rely on it in a court of law? As early as 1801, the Supreme Court took notice of a treaty, and finding it applicable to the situation before it, gave judgment for the petitioner based on it.315 In Foster v. Neilson,316 Chief Justice Marshall explained that a treaty is to be regarded in courts “as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision.” A treaty will not be self-executing, however, “when the terms of the [treaty] stipulation import a contract — when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act…” When this is the case, “the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the con tract, before it can become a rule for the court.”24

Sometimes the nature of a treaty will determine whether it requires legislative execution or “conveys an intention that it be ‘self-executing’ and is ratified on these terms.”25 One authority states that whether a treaty is self-executing “depends upon whether the obligation is imposed on private individuals or on public authorities…”

mewalke wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:Still unlikely it will be ratified in the next 4 years though.

TxD wrote:

mewalke wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:Still unlikely it will be ratified in the next 4 years though.

An interesting point of view on non ratified treaties.

"It’s commonly said that the Senate has to provide its advice and consent to any treaty – commonly known as ratifying it – before it can take effect. That’s true, but there’s a loophole. Once the U.S. signs a treaty, we hold ourselves bound not to violate the treaty’s “object and purpose.”

In other words, we obey in practice treaties that the Senate has never ratified."

"This rule is an old one, and it used to make some sense. It would be dishonorable to sign a treaty with another country, do all the things prohibited by the treaty, and then ratify it."

"As a result, the old requirement not to violate the “object and purpose” of a signed treaty has become a way to evade the need for Senate ratification. And in the case of the Arms Trade Treaty, the problem is even worse. The administration will argue that it already has all the powers it needs to enforce the treaty."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/ ... s-to-come/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Right2Carry wrote: The administration can argue all it wants to, the bottom line for me is the Constitution is the law of the land and no foreign entity can take that away from us. There is a sleeping Giant in this country that some folks with an agenda better hope they don't awaken.

Right2Carry wrote:If I am not mistaken the Supreme Court has ruled several times that treaties cannot undermine the rights granted by the US Constitution. I don't have time to research it at the moment. No treaty can ever supersede the US Constitution.

Right2Carry wrote:If I am not mistaken the Supreme Court has ruled several times that treaties cannot undermine the rights granted by the US Constitution.

cb1000rider wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:If I am not mistaken the Supreme Court has ruled several times that treaties cannot undermine the rights granted by the US Constitution.

They've ruled the same thing when state law conflicts with federal law.. Or when state law runs afoul of the Constitution. However, try "bearing arms" in your local suburban neighborhood and see what happens..

I'm not a crazy gun-nut, I promise.