UN gun control treaty to be signed by U.S. on July 27!

[chud333]

In addition to needing 67 votes in the Senate, an impossible number these days, Reid v. covert established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties. So the sky ISN'T falling.

Agreed my friend but remember this administration has proved
they think the Constitution is simply an inconvienience for them
to sidestep at every opportunity.

Chuck

 

[guitar1580]

Depends on your definition of "fail". Fox news said that the treaty vote was "postponed" for a few months while it is tweaked further, due to the request by some countries, including the US, for more time. The battle is not over concerning this.

Seems to me like another political ploy to delay the issue until after the election. If this administration stays in, I think we'll see a flip flop on the recent kissing up to gun owners.

JP

 

[bluegrassarms]

Depends on your definition of "fail". Fox news said that the treaty vote was "postponed" for a few months while it is tweaked further, due to the request by some countries, including the US, for more time. The battle is not over concerning this.

Seems to me like another political ploy to delay the issue until after the election. If this administration stays in, I think we'll see a flip flop on the recent kissing up to gun owners.

JP

this. Obama wants no part of making guns an issue in the election and will push this all into his 2nd term if he has one. As was said above, the NRA is carrying a 20lb sledge around DC ready to play politician whack-a-mole if anyone takes an anti-gun stance.

You don't have to agree with 100% of the NRA agenda (I don't) to appreciate that hanging together is beating the tar out of us hanging separately.

 

[PALADIN85020]

Good riddance to bad garbage. However, I'm still not convinced that the current administration will not try to implement some of its provisions in the "spirit" of the whole dumb idea, and keep pecking away in the U.N. until they get what they want. Hopefully, this attitude will also go away in November. Remember, folks:

John

 

[Cooter Brown]

Been a while since civics, but afaik Morris is not just wrong but very wrong, a fact I find disturbing given his standing in the government.

A President can negotiate a treaty but cannot sign it into law. The Senate must be adopted by a 2/3rds vote of the Senate and only then can the President ratify it by his signature. First the Senate must vote, then the President can sign it into law.

As part of his negotiation process he can sign the agreement, but it has no weight of law. For US legal purposes it's a symbolic gesture only as I understand it.

By custom the treaty would go to Foreign Relations then to the full Senate but I don't believe that's a requirement. It's a custom like the President submitting a budget. He's not required to do so.

Regardless nothing he agrees to has any force of law until the Senate votes it into law and he subsequently signs it, just like any law.

The only exception re international treaties, which is the loophole that worries me, is if something is brought into effect as part of an existing treaty or by some kind of bizarre legal accession. As a stand alone treaty I can't imagine what will come out of a committee where Iran is a respected member ever passing muster.

I wonder if this is to what he's referring, that there's some existing treaty framework out there that lets him claim this to be part of something to which the Senate already agreed. I don't know of any such thing and haven't seen it put that way in the media, but that's the best swag I've got.

I'll be surprised if Obama even endorses this thing. Too much of a risk for him before the election. He'd only validate the NRA's concerns and not really get anyone to vote for him that wasn't already going to do so.

I think this is basically sound. Morris goes on to say that if Obama signs it or if it were ratified it would supersede the Constitution because of the Supremacy Clause. My reading of the Supremacy Clause and some of the decisions surrounding it (such as Reid v. Covert which Nicos Testoteros cites) is that the opposite would be true--the Constitution is supreme and a treaty or any portion of it that conflicts with it is null.

I've always thought Morris was a bit of a flake with a personal agenda against the Clintons (they threw him under the bus after he got caught with a working girl) and a Johnny come lately conservative. But I thought he was pretty smart--here he seems to be making a very fundamental mistake about the law and the Constitution.

If COL Jagdog or any of the other attorneys would care to, I'd like to hear if my understanding of the Supremacy Clause is wrong. Or if Morris is right.

 

[johngalt]

According to this foxnews article:
UN fails to reach deal on global arms trade treaty, as US asks for more time | Fox News

The supreme court has esablished that treaties do not trump our constutionally guaranteed individual rights, nor state's 10th ammendment rights. Laws passed by Congress also trump treaties.

If correct, it sounds, it sounds like treaties are at the bottom.

 

[ladder13]

BBC is reporting that an agreement cannot be reached and it fails.

WONDERFUL

 

[powergal]

UN GUN TREATY

The following link has info on the UN Treaty
Obama-Backed UN Gun Control Treaty on Its Way | FrontPage Magazine