TexasCHLforum.com

kauboy wrote:They can take that treaty and blow it out their ear.
If, and I do mean IF, any U.S. President or legislature ever agrees to that stupid thing, there will be a housecleaning of the U.N. building like they can't imagine.

If they want to know how many guns we have... agree to this thing, and find out.

Hopefully it would be taken up with the supreme court and insta-owned as it should be, and any legislator who voted for it lose their incumbency.

Well the scary thing is, since treaties can be enacted without consent of the people, if a head full-o-mush gets into the Oval orifice and signs onto this thing, they will have to start enacting it as policy. The Supreme Court wouldn't be able to do a whole lot about it. Then it will only be up to us, "the people", to resist this to our dying breath.

Treaties must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. We need to make this an issue in every Senate race.

The executive branch has a limited ability to follow treaties without Senate confirmation, but the President can't overturn state or federal laws.

- Jim

My use of "consent of the people" was referring to a process similar to ratification. We, as the population, wouldn't get to vote on this. So you are exactly right, we need to elect proper statesmen to the Senate who will stand for our Constitution. Not to mention, we need a President who won't compromise on it either.

A treaty does not trump individual constitutional rights. If the Supreme Court issues an opinion that the Second Amendment is an individual right, then the UN treaty threat is gone. Without such a ruling, we have a very real risk, which is why the NRA fought so hard against the recent two UN attempts to draft such a treaty.

Chas.

kauboy wrote:My use of "consent of the people" was referring to a process similar to ratification. We, as the population, wouldn't get to vote on this.

The people never got to vote directly on the Constitution itself or the amendments. The Constitution and amendments are ratified by state legislatures. There's no legal recourse for the people except to elect a supermajority that will reverse the entire process.

That did happen once in history.

- Jim

Charles L. Cotton wrote:A treaty does not trump individual constitutional rights. If the Supreme Court issues an opinion that the Second Amendment is an individual right, then the UN treaty threat is gone. Without such a ruling, we have a very real risk, which is why the NRA fought so hard against the recent two UN attempts to draft such a treaty.

Chas.

It seems that every year, more and more American people lean toward the dream of a Utopian world government, where everyone lives in peace and harmony and no one has any desire to harm anyone else in any way.

They don't seem to realize that you can't legislate such a thing, and that peace can often only be held by threat of force.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:A treaty does not trump individual constitutional rights. If the Supreme Court issues an opinion that the Second Amendment is an individual right, then the UN treaty threat is gone. Without such a ruling, we have a very real risk, which is why the NRA fought so hard against the recent two UN attempts to draft such a treaty.

Chas.

Thats why we cannot afford a ruling by the Supremes that our right is "fundamental", like you said, it'll be all over, if that ends up being the case...

That why I am hoping that if its to be ruled or opinion'd on, that it is not only re-affirmed that it is an "individual" right, that it is also affirmed that it is an "inalienable right"...

I know I've been harping on that aspect lately, but I believe I am right in standing firm on that fact...

It is a simple, primal, core fact in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence...That Bill of Rights was an affirmation of those documents as well...So we have ample documentation that affirms inalienable right(s) endowed by our creator...Plain and simple...

This particular language needs to be incorporated in our discussions, debates and testimony as additional protection when the time comes...

Which is pretty much now...

seamusTX wrote:There's no legal recourse for the people except to elect a supermajority that will reverse the entire process.

Wanna bet?

kauboy wrote:Wanna bet?

I said "legal."

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

kauboy wrote:Wanna bet?

I said "legal."

- Jim

The American Revolution was "legal", after the fact.

cjlandry wrote:The American Revolution was "legal", after the fact.

If you win and establish a stable government, you get statues and holidays named after you. But starting a revolution, or even planning one, can get you in a heap of trouble.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

cjlandry wrote:The American Revolution was "legal", after the fact.

If you win and establish a stable government, you get statues and holidays named after you. But starting a revolution, or even planning one, can get you in a heap of trouble.

- Jim

It's an ancient and time honored concept, the victor gets to write the history.

seamusTX wrote:If you win...

Never engage if you don't intend to win...
Jefferson knew it would one day be needed once again. The people's God-given right to revolt against a corrupt government will never be taken away.