Posts: 353
Threads: 25
Joined: Jan 2012
I think we're OK. Ratification of treaties require 2/3s of the Senate. Can't see that ever happening...I could be wrong.
Weapons legislation is probably going to take a back seat to the budget fiasco for the rest of the year, or at least it should.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.
- Voltaire
I read somewhere that the President can sign an executive order that, while it does not formally ratify a treaty, makes the provisions part of US regulations. I think the idea is to give him the chance to take immediate action when the situation warrants.
I'm working from vague memory on this one, but I'm hoping that someone versed in constitutional and international law follows this forum and can correct any misstatement in this post.
Posts: 353
Threads: 25
Joined: Jan 2012
I'm with ya JA...not an expert From what I can remember, treaty ratification is why the US never joined the League of Nations at the end of WW I. Senate never ratified the treaties required. Wilson was essentially one of the writers of this treaty (part of his points of peace)
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.
- Voltaire
Posts: 415
Threads: 6
Joined: Mar 2011
Hopefully it's a trap...Senate doesn't ratify so Obama moves forward on his own...Senators Lee, Paul, and Rubio file impeachment charges for breach of Oath of Office for agreeing to a treaty that goes against the Constitution.
Yeah, I know, wishful thinking!
Μολὼν λαβέ
Thanks! That is indeed encouraging news.
Nonetheless, we must remain vigilant and proactive!
Cheers!
i do think some of the dems are getting scared if they are up for election in 14. they are backing off just a bit to give themselves wiggle room come election time.
Posts: 1,827
Threads: 111
Joined: Jun 2011
03-25-2013, 09:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-25-2013, 10:00 PM by BjornF16.)
Any international accord (e.g. Treaty) must be in accord with the US Constitution...otherwise it is void. See
Reid v. Covert (1957 US Supreme Court).
Quote:From the decision in Reid v. Covert:
"Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:
"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;... ."
There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [354 U.S. 1, 17] War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined." (emphasis added)
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/354-001a.htm
Trying to implement (ratified or not) any international treaty would rightly be met with lawsuits and (most likely) a stay of implementation. It would certainly make its way through the court system.
Doesn't mean they won't try, but we have SCOTUS precedent on our side.
Things appeared to be settling down some, but then news of S.B. 649 and the Dem arm twisting in the smoke filled (and whisky filled) back rooms indicate there is merely a lull in which they hope to catch us napping.
LIFE member: NRA, TSRA, SAF, GOA
Defend the Constitution and our 2A Rights!
That thread seems to have slipped past a bunch of us. I suspect the distraction of the Assault Weapons Ban may indeed have kept some of us from taking proper note of that thread.
Posts: 783
Threads: 65
Joined: Apr 2012
rushmc Wrote:Good news
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the...reaty.aspx
Although this is encouraging, the language is still about not infringing our 2A rights. Unfortunately, the current administration does not view any of the gun legislation proposed to date would harm our 2A rights. I am sure they would be ok with the international trade of flint lock and bolt action weapons.
At least the UN treaty would not get put into place.
