Forums / Political & Legal / RETURN from the NEAR DEAD: Talk of another UN TRY for a SMALL ARMS CONTROL TREATY

1 year 37 weeks ago, 3:56 PM

LLE

LLE's picture

Rank:
General
Points:
2852
Join Date:
Jul 2008
Location:
United States

IF there are any constitutional attorneys on board here, I would appreciate an answer to the following question, because there is so much anxiety surrounding the issue.

WE know that treaty approval requires the approval of the POTUS AND the Advice and Consent of the Senate by a 66 2/3 % vote.

Question: WHY WOULD THE SENATE RENDER AN APPROVAL VOTE, IF THEY KNEW SUCH A VOTE WOULD PRODUCE A VIOLATION OF THE US CONSTITUTION [AMENDMENT #2]??

(It is my understanding that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is required to analyze the provisions of ANY proposed treaty, with a view toward determining whether the proposed treaty language would prima facie violate the Constitution. It is my understanding, further that the proposed UN treaties WILL IN FACT violate the Second Amendment. Thus, if the committee is, by law, required to report this out properly to the "en banc" Senate, why should we allow ourselves to be driven into high anxiety? I am certainly not advocating complasence in ANY matter that threatens the Second Amendment---but the NRA [I am a member] and others seem to be pushing this story in order to justify special contributions, memberships, etc. If the proposed UN treaty language in fact does violate Amendment 2, and is reported out properly,it seems to me that the Senate must then vote down the US "ratification" or table it to suspend further consideration.).

Too old to fight, Too old to run, guess that's why I carry a gun! "would someone show this asshole the way out of town".[Rabbi Avram Belinski-aka "The Frisco Kid"]
1 year 37 weeks ago, 7:44 PM

coppertop

coppertop's picture

Rank:
Major General
Points:
463
Join Date:
Apr 2012
Location:
Bolivar, Mo, United States

The Constitution --- Plain and Simple

Treaties

Curtis W. Caine, MD

We are told at every turn that "treaties supersede the Constitution of The[se] States United" --- nugatory. Here is what Article VI, paragraph 2 actually stipulates on the issue: "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution [of any State] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis added.]"

The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution declares: "We the People of the United States...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union of 1777 had proven so inadequate and imperfect in their ten year life that they were supplanted in 1787 by the Constitution "in Order to form a more perfect Union."

Whereas the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 is the Charter of These States United, disclosing and proclaiming its purpose and reason for being, the U.S. Constitution of September 17, 1787 is the ByLaws laid down by the States detailing the day-to-day operation assigned to the Union and setting it in motion. The States, the creators of the Union, gave no authority to the central government via the U.S. Constitution for a treaty to be consummated with a foreign nation (1) that would empower treaty functions that they did not allow the U.S. government to have, or (2) that would obligate this Union and its States to do something that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution, or (3) that would transfer functions and activities assigned to the Union to any agency outside of the Union. That's elemental, prima facie, self-evident. So, at the outset, to even entertain the idea that treaties supersede the Constitution is specious.

By Article II, Section 1, paragraph 7, the President is required to swear he will: "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article VI, paragraph 3 requires all Federal and State officers to also swear:"...to support this [U.S.] Constitution..."

Article I, Section 10, paragraph 1 declares: "No State shall enter into any Treaty..."

All civil magistrates are bound by oath to abide by the U.S. Constitution, and nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is any authority given for these United States to be subject to and bound by any earthly piece of paper that abrogates or is alien to the Constitution of the United States. As a matter of fact, Article VI, paragraph 2, the latter half of which is quoted at the outset above, in its first half, says only three (3) pronouncements are "the supreme Law of the Land":

(1) "THIS [the U.S.] Constitution," (2) "the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" (i.e., as permitted by, in conformity with, and to implement this Constitution), and (3) "all treaties made....under the Authority of the United States" ("under" designates that treaties are not over, not above, and not even equal to the authority of the United States granted to it by the States via the U.S. Constitution - but remain under, inferior to its jurisdiction).

A treaty may not do or exceed what the Congress is charged to do or what it is forbidden to do. Constitutional authority supersedes, overrules, and precludes any contrary treaty authority.

Thus, if a proposed treaty would violate any provision of the Constitution, it may not even be seriously considered or debated, much less be ratified and implemented because the same restrictions that were placed by the Constitution on the U.S. Federal government are also imposed on any treaty provision.

Treaty embroilment is so dangerous and so important, that to further limit and restrict their making, Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 orders that the President: "...shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; [Emphasis added.]"

This provision accomplishes two things: 1) it prohibits the President alone to commit the United States to an agreement with other nations (the Senate must advise, consent, concur, and ratify). And 2), why is the Senate singled out, and not the House of Representatives, or both Houses? Because the Senate is the branch of the Congress whose Senators' constituencies are not "my people back home," but "my State government back home."(1)

Before the destabilizing Seventeenth Amendment was deceptively promoted and irrationally ratified in 1913, each State Legislature appointed its Senators. A Senator is sent to Washington to uphold, defend, represent, and guard the retained rights, jurisdiction, and interests of his individual State. If a proposed treaty would adversely effect the States, their Senators are to protect their respective States by not consenting/ratifying.

Treaties are potentially so threatening to the sovereignty of the individual States and the Union of These States that two thirds of the Senators are required to be convinced that the treaty under consideration does not contravene the U.S. Constitution and/or adversely impact on the retained functions and interests of the States before they consent/ratify.

In 1789, the States directly ratified the Constitution --- as per Article VII. Since then, the States through their representatives (their Senators) must also ratify any treaty --- Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 --- for the same reason, namely, that the creators (the States) must have the final say.

There is a pecking order: God made People, People made States, States made the Union. Therefore, the Union is beholden to the States, the States are beholden to the People, and all three are beholden to God.

Further, Article VI, paragraph 2 quoted above commands that if and when all of the above requirements for a treaty are met --- that is, a) it does not contradict the Constitution; b) it is negotiated by the President who has sworn to not violate, and who in fact is not violating the Constitution; and c) it is ratified by two thirds of the State-defending-Senators who have sworn to not violate, and who do not by their vote violate the Constitution --- then, and only then, may the treaty in question go into full force and effect for the Union and for all of the individual States in the Union. This latter consequence is the reason for Article VI, paragraph 2 to conclude:

"...and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the [not "this"] Constitution [ of any State] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis added.]"

So, the Judges in each State must obey a bona fide treaty, even if the treaty is contrary to that state's Constitution or contrary to any law of that state.

Thus, a properly/legally concluded U.S. treaty overrules any STATE law and any STATE Constitution, but a properly/legally framed U.S. treaty does not, may not, can not, and is forbidden to overrule the U.S. Constitution or abrogate the Sovereignty of the United States. If it does, it is not bona fide. It is a usurpation. It is not "under the Authority of the United States" to make such a treaty.

Ergo, treaties ("made, or which shall be made") that violate the U.S. Constitution by subjugating the United States to an outside power ARE PROHIBITED, of no effect, and thus, null and void.

For a Senator to violate his sworn oath is perjury, a felony, an impeachable offense.

Since treaties are compacts between/among " the powers of the earth" of "separate and equal station" as stipulated in the Declaration of Independence, treaties may not be consummated with other than sovereign nations.

Consequently, for at least these two reasons --- 1) because the U.S. Senate in 1945 ratified the United Nations (UN) Charter as a treaty and the UN is not a sovereign nation, and 2) because membership in the UN makes the U.S. inferior to the UN --- U.S. "membership" in the United Nations is unconstitutional, FORBIDDEN, and thus declared null and void. Ditto for the World Court and the nebulous entanglements of the New World Order.

Thomas Jefferson was clear on this point: "If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution. Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." Alexander Hamilton agreed: "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States."(2)

In spite of all of the obvious above, some people doggedly insist that "treaties supersede the Constitution" because they want treaties to supersede the Constitution so they can escape the chains of the Constitution! And they plan and scheme relentlessly toward achieving that end. Some even boast of having made an end run around the Constitution.

At its conception and inception, America was founded as a Constitutional Republic under the Rule of Law. In a Republic, law prevails until changed as per a stipulated process, even if a majority of, or 150 percent of the Congress, or 200 percent of the people vote otherwise. (Don't giggle: LBJ was "elected" to Congress with 110 percent of all of the issued ballots in his Texas district "cast" for him!)

But, the U.S. has been traitorously transformed into a socialist (tyrannic) democracy by and of lawless men. Thus, the stipulations and safeguards of the Constitution have been repeatedly circumvented, eroded, and nullified by majority rule.

The resultant tyranny and humiliation under which we now suffer will only continue and intensify until enough citizens read the Constitution, become cognizant that it is being continually violated, realize that freedom from despotism is a personal do-it-yourself project ("George" hasn't and isn't going to do it), and determine to get personally involved to return American to its Constitutional boundaries.

Let each of us accept that responsibility, determine to put the Constitution back into full force and effect, and get on with that patriotic job. If not us, who? If not now, when? The satisfaction that comes from doing what is right, though hard work, makes it fun. Join the enjoyment!
References

1. Caine C. The seventeenth amendment. Medical Sentinel 1996;2(1):32-33.
2. Thomas Jefferson quoted from his Manual of Parliamentary Practice and Alexander Hamilton from The Federalist Papers cited by Hoar WP. Treaties vs the constitution --- which law is supreme. The New American 1995;11(7):55.

Dr. Caine is an anesthesiologist in Jackson, Mississippi, and a member of the Editorial Board of the Medical Sentinel.

1 year 37 weeks ago, 2:31 AM

LLE

LLE's picture

Rank:
General
Points:
2852
Join Date:
Jul 2008
Location:
United States

The humor in this posting IMO is that it was written?? by an anesthesiologist, and when I got to the end, I was asleep.

Too old to fight, Too old to run, guess that's why I carry a gun! "would someone show this asshole the way out of town".[Rabbi Avram Belinski-aka "The Frisco Kid"]
1 year 37 weeks ago, 7:02 AM

coppertop

coppertop's picture

Rank:
Major General
Points:
463
Join Date:
Apr 2012
Location:
Bolivar, Mo, United States

Yet still awake enough to post a reply. The humor is how petty and spiteful you are.

1 year 37 weeks ago, 9:12 AM

LLE

LLE's picture

Rank:
General
Points:
2852
Join Date:
Jul 2008
Location:
United States

/quote/ are you that out of touch that you can't get humor.....maybe you can't handle it that not everyone agrees with you /unquote/

Let's see---"petty and spiteful"----looks like more ad hominem to me.

Have you not yet learned that such an attack demonstrates you have lost the verbal combat??

Even Obama learned THAT, last Monday night.

Too old to fight, Too old to run, guess that's why I carry a gun! "would someone show this asshole the way out of town".[Rabbi Avram Belinski-aka "The Frisco Kid"]
1 year 37 weeks ago, 9:19 AM

ptrudge

ptrudge's picture

Rank:
Lieutenant General
Points:
1745
Join Date:
Oct 2010
Location:
Houston, Texas, United States
ad hominem

and that - REALLY FUNNY !!

"Guns are Liberty's Teeth" - Thomas Jefferson" Philip Trudgeon Shipping and Receiving Telephone (281) 568-5685 FAX (281) 568-9191
1 year 37 weeks ago, 9:41 AM

ptrudge

ptrudge's picture

Rank:
Lieutenant General
Points:
1745
Join Date:
Oct 2010
Location:
Houston, Texas, United States
FAMOUS

The word pompous comes to mind related to the referenced well known and now famous (infamous?) quote.

According to wiktionary, a close relative of wikipedia, the following is given:

Adjective; pompous (comparative more pompous, superlative most pompous)

1.Affectedly grand, solemn or self-important.

1848, Thackeray, William Makepeace, Vanity Fair, Bantam Classics (1997), 16:
"Not that the parting speech caused Amelia to philosophise, or that it armed her in any way with a calmness, the result of argument; but it was intolerably dull, pompous, and tedious; and having the fear of her schoolmistress greatly before her eyes, Miss Sedley did not venture, in her presence, to give way to any ebullitions of private grief."

According to Merriam Webster, a much better known and respected source of information and widely accepted by all knowledgeable authorities, the following is given:

Definition of POMPOUS

1: excessively elevated or ornate
2: having or exhibiting self-importance : arrogant
3: relating to or suggestive of pomp or splendor : magnificent
— pomp·ous·ly adverb
— pomp·ous·ness noun
See pompous defined for English-language learners »
See pompous defined for kids »
Examples of POMPOUS
She found it difficult to talk about her achievements without sounding pompous.

So as the pictures of flooded shanties flicker by on cable news, uptight neatnik Midwestern Lutherans and sensitive northeastern urban sophisticates and pompous media grandees on both coasts express shock at the unexpected squalor of the poverty and bafflement over the slovenly corruption of the civic institutions. —Rob Long, National Review, 26 Sept. 2005
___________________________________________________________

For fun, check out http://www.pompousasswords.com/www/index.htm

LOL

"Guns are Liberty's Teeth" - Thomas Jefferson" Philip Trudgeon Shipping and Receiving Telephone (281) 568-5685 FAX (281) 568-9191
1 year 37 weeks ago, 8:17 PM

coppertop

coppertop's picture

Rank:
Major General
Points:
463
Join Date:
Apr 2012
Location:
Bolivar, Mo, United States

The good doctor was making the case that the constitution cannot be overruled by a treaty. That argument supported what you were posting. So what disagreement is there here. Had someone else posted the doctors statement, would you have had the negative comments? And no this is not an hominem, you are petty and spiteful. Even if I post something that supports a position that you put forward, you will try to create conflict where none exists. But not to worry, your girlfriend ptrudge will be along to hold your hand.

1 year 36 weeks ago, 2:36 PM

LLE

LLE's picture

Rank:
General
Points:
2852
Join Date:
Jul 2008
Location:
United States

before declaring your opinion concerning what is or is not, ad hominem. Your last sentence is perfectly reflective of ad hominem, in the form of labelling and sarcasm. Once again, you demonstrate that you must depend upon empty, angry personal attacks, rather than sensible argumentation. Sarcasm as most of us know, is the last refuge of someone who has nothing left with which to argue.
If you looked carefully, you would have seen that I thanked you for the citation of Reid v Covert. That was sincere. The case was very meaningful to me, and in my opinion was much more useful, than your posting of Dr. Caine's overly loquacious presentation. If the foregoing is unacceptable to you, my gut feel is that you are looking for "conflict", where, reasonable people would see only that a difference of opinion exists. Looking for conflict, in my opinion, is a reflection of your extreme generalized anger and frustration, engendering aggressive, ugly, accusatory and defamatory language [see again, your last sentence]. This defamatory language has stepped over the line of propriety created by our reasonably peaceful community. If you want to declare verbal war, I will have none of it, and my guess is the Mods won't, either.

Too old to fight, Too old to run, guess that's why I carry a gun! "would someone show this asshole the way out of town".[Rabbi Avram Belinski-aka "The Frisco Kid"]
1 year 37 weeks ago, 9:24 AM

ptrudge

ptrudge's picture

Rank:
Lieutenant General
Points:
1745
Join Date:
Oct 2010
Location:
Houston, Texas, United States
girlfriend

Lol - NOW that is humor !!!!

Sounds like someone needs to BUY themself a girfriend.

"Guns are Liberty's Teeth" - Thomas Jefferson" Philip Trudgeon Shipping and Receiving Telephone (281) 568-5685 FAX (281) 568-9191
1 year 37 weeks ago, 9:36 AM

ptrudge

ptrudge's picture

Rank:
Lieutenant General
Points:
1745
Join Date:
Oct 2010
Location:
Houston, Texas, United States
Good Doctor

How do you know he is/was a good doctor? Did yor investigate his record; history; standing in the medical community? if so cite your source.

Oh crap ! Now I am starting to sound ...................pompous !

"Guns are Liberty's Teeth" - Thomas Jefferson" Philip Trudgeon Shipping and Receiving Telephone (281) 568-5685 FAX (281) 568-9191
1 year 37 weeks ago, 9:09 AM

ptrudge

ptrudge's picture

Rank:
Lieutenant General
Points:
1745
Join Date:
Oct 2010
Location:
Houston, Texas, United States
Humor

Now that is funny .......

"Guns are Liberty's Teeth" - Thomas Jefferson" Philip Trudgeon Shipping and Receiving Telephone (281) 568-5685 FAX (281) 568-9191
1 year 37 weeks ago, 9:15 AM

LLE

LLE's picture

Rank:
General
Points:
2852
Join Date:
Jul 2008
Location:
United States
Thank You--Sir

I do my own comedy writing!!!!

Too old to fight, Too old to run, guess that's why I carry a gun! "would someone show this asshole the way out of town".[Rabbi Avram Belinski-aka "The Frisco Kid"]
1 year 37 weeks ago, 7:49 PM

coppertop

coppertop's picture

Rank:
Major General
Points:
463
Join Date:
Apr 2012
Location:
Bolivar, Mo, United States
Reid v. Covert

This was ruled on in 1957 by the Supreme Court. It held that the constitution supersedes all treaties ratified by the Senate

1 year 37 weeks ago, 3:03 PM

LLE

LLE's picture

Rank:
General
Points:
2852
Join Date:
Jul 2008
Location:
United States

It was an interesting case that I vaguely remember right around the time it was being re-heard. I re-read the findings and certainly concur with the decision.

Too old to fight, Too old to run, guess that's why I carry a gun! "would someone show this asshole the way out of town".[Rabbi Avram Belinski-aka "The Frisco Kid"]
1 year 37 weeks ago, 8:01 PM

luckybychoice

luckybychoice's picture


Rank:
Secretary of the Treasury
Points:
6774
Join Date:
May 2009
Location:
United States
the NRA says

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/rumor-control-un-att-and...

i tried being reasonable,i didn't like it, NRA LIFE MEMBER,USMC VETERAN
1 year 37 weeks ago, 2:39 AM

LLE

LLE's picture

Rank:
General
Points:
2852
Join Date:
Jul 2008
Location:
United States

the objectives of each appear to be counter to the provisions of the US Constitution, and thus, may not be approved by the Senate despite perhaps having language changes "negotiated" by the POTUS.

Too old to fight, Too old to run, guess that's why I carry a gun! "would someone show this asshole the way out of town".[Rabbi Avram Belinski-aka "The Frisco Kid"]
1 year 37 weeks ago, 10:04 AM

luckybychoice

luckybychoice's picture


Rank:
Secretary of the Treasury
Points:
6774
Join Date:
May 2009
Location:
United States

For remaining civil.....

i tried being reasonable,i didn't like it, NRA LIFE MEMBER,USMC VETERAN
1 year 37 weeks ago, 10:12 AM

ptrudge

ptrudge's picture

Rank:
Lieutenant General
Points:
1745
Join Date:
Oct 2010
Location:
Houston, Texas, United States
civil

My sincere apologies

"Guns are Liberty's Teeth" - Thomas Jefferson" Philip Trudgeon Shipping and Receiving Telephone (281) 568-5685 FAX (281) 568-9191
1 year 37 weeks ago, 11:02 AM

LLE

LLE's picture

Rank:
General
Points:
2852
Join Date:
Jul 2008
Location:
United States

I don't know that I have been all that successful at remaining civil. But at times, it has been very difficult to prevent myself from descending to Mr. Coppertop's level of discourse. If I have failed, I apologize sincerely.

Too old to fight, Too old to run, guess that's why I carry a gun! "would someone show this asshole the way out of town".[Rabbi Avram Belinski-aka "The Frisco Kid"]

Who's Online

Guns Lot Activity
Users
Currently Active Users: 953 (0 members and 953 guests)

Guns Lot Statistics
Stats Topics: 8,639, Comments: 160,795, Members: 23,517
Welcome our newest member: Hank6046

Recent Activity