UN treaty to be excuse for more gun control by Obama administration

[PALADIN85020]

Were you aware that treaties entered into with foreign entities by the United States have precedence over the Constitution of the United States? Then you need to read this piece on what the Obama administration is looking to buy into with the U.N. It is nothing more than an end run around the Second Amendment. This one is another chilling indicator of trouble to come.

Obama revives talk of U.N. gun control

 

[darmtn1917]

Don't think so - it goes like this

"1. Federal Constitution
2. Federal statutes/treaties (most recent one prevails)
3. Executive orders
4. State laws "

 

[PALADIN85020]

Don't think so - it goes like this

"1. Federal Constitution
2. Federal statutes/treaties (most recent one prevails)
3. Executive orders
4. State laws "

Sure willing to admit if I'm wrong on that - do you have a specific reference on the hierarchy you quoted? Thanks.

 

[darmtn1917]

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Article IV, paragraph 2, reads as follows:

"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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstandin

Interesting argument on this:
The Constitution --- Plain and Simple: Treaties

 

[darmtn1917]

Agree the UN part is for the tin hat crowd but the general gist is treaties can not override the constitution. Probably wasn't the best example LOL

 

[AZretired]

Don't forget that any treaty Obama signs must be ratified by 75% of the Seant before it means anything. He doenn't have the votes and never will.

 

[oldRoger]

It is certainly unlikely that POTUS can get the 67 votes. Unlike the Pelosi-Reid-Obama health care bill, there are Democrats in the senate that would not go along with this power grab.
In fact I suspect that H. Reid would not, at least until after he is reelected. With a little luck he may not make that reelection hurdle.
It would not surprise me to see the POTUS sign the thing and never submit it to the Senate, a favorite trick of Clinton's

 

[Spotteddog]

Roger,
I really like the way you think,
about the way he thinks.

 

[handejector]

I have long feared that the UN, or actually a treaty made thru the UN, would be our downfall.

Interesting argument on this:
The Constitution --- Plain and Simple: Treaties

The argument presented in the link above is flawed in several ways.
First, the author presents opinions by Jefferson and Hamilton that may or may not be recognized as pertinent. They are only opinions, not law; not part of The Constitution. They are more likely to be labeled archaic or irrelevant to today's world.
Second, his "pecking order", wherein he states "the Union is beholden to the States", is ludicrous. I think it was proven in 1865 that a state's sovereignty is NOT superior to the Federal government.
Third, the author totally ignores the fact that The Constitution only means what the Court interprets it to mean. If the sitting Court rules such treaties were meant to be superior to The Constitution, we are lost.

Fear the UN.
Keep a close watch on the UN.
Their peace keeping and relief missions usually appear very inept- SO inept that I have to wonder if it is by design. That is to say that perhaps that apparent ineptness is designed to lull us into believing they are not a threat. Throw enough nations, enough money, and enough troops behind an operation, and we are lost. Do you think Chavez and the Muslim oil producing nations could provide enough money to provide enough troops to enforce such a treaty? Let's say, maybe, Aisian troops that work cheaply........

We are the last major country on earth which has a large middle class (or used to!) that is armed. So, WHO do you think the last major obstacle to GLOBALISM is?

 

[ncy54]

John Bolton saved us from this treaty, first as a mid-level UN envoy in 2001, and then as UN Ambassador in later years. He steadfastly opposed this treaty, which has repeatedly been put forward over the last decade This was one of the reasons that he was never able to win full congressional approval for this post after being appointed by Bush.
I agree that shoving this through the Senate would be very difficult, but it doesn't mean that they won't try. If ratified, it would be a disaster for us, and by the time it got to the Supreme's for a ruling, who knows what the makeup of the court would be.......

 

[oldRoger]

I agree with Lee, certainly the easiest way to do the job is through the UN. Because the UN is run by the lowest common dominator, it is a great place to start the thin end of the wedge, once started the treaty would mean whatever they say it means and we would have no recourse.
The UN and NGOs aim to remove the means of self defense from everyone but the "governing bodies", this of course makes very good sense to all of the tin pot dictators and thugs of the world.

Makes sense to POTUS as well, if we need to be protected, the Feds will do it. What works in Chicago will work everywhere.

You know it will only represent "reasonable gun control" and will save the "women and children".

So we must stay vigilant.

I would argue that we should never ratify any UN treaty about anything.

 

[handejector]

I would argue that we should never ratify any UN treaty about anything.

I would argue that we should ratify our withdrawal from said organization, seize and sell the building, and deport the delegates. This organization will never do anything that benefits us.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

It is only about 30 years after the obvious conclusion, but I will repeat it here:

The United Nations has become what Sir Winston Churchill eloquently predicted that it would be, and that is a "useless debating society".

To continue tolerating the gathering of this "hate America" club on US soil is intolerable. All UN delegates should be served with a "persona non grata" notice and deported summarily.

Any nation that has had a UN delegate stand up in New York City at the UN headquarters and attack/ridicule/vilify the United States should be denied ANY foreign aid under ANY circumstances for a minimum of 100 years.

On the other hand, I do love the French! They will always be there when they need us!

 

[oldRoger]

I would dig deep to help pay for relocation costs, I think Haiti would be a great choice for a relocated UN.

As much as I would like to see them go, I suspect that I am too old to see it happen. It a great dream of the progressives; we just all get together and talk things over and everything will fix itself.

As POTUS floats around the world you can see this mindset, all we need is just to talk things over. Not likely as long as humans are involved.

Out of timber so crooked as that from which man is made nothing entirely straight can be built. Kant

 

[Spotteddog]

I'd think they'd fight tooth and nail doing everything possible to keep it in the US?
They don't seem to be in any hurry to move to where the 20 year old Scotch, Bourbon, etc., etc. isn't available?
You'd think the diplomatic corp especially would have a bit more of a vested interest in making sure the land of milk and honey survived?
But I guess once you've smelled the lanolin of a wet goat, Chanel #5, flush toilets, hot water and beautiful women kind of lose their appeal?

 

[james56]

U.N.

This will only happen if we allow it to happen!! That means do we have the guts like our fore farthers did back in 1770's!! On a whole I dont think with this generation has it in them. Just look who's President and who Voted Him and his qronnies in. Speaks for it self. As for me "From My Cold Dead Hands"

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

 

[Niner19]

I am probably speaking to the choir, but I would like to point out that the source of our right to keep and bear arms is not the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights only enumerates the natural rights we have by the fact that we are born human. They are not given to us by a government and therefore cannot be taken away by a government. Thy can try. If they do, then to speak as to what course of action we will take I will refer to the Declaration of Indpendence.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Molon Labe

 

[oldRoger]

To preach a bit more to the choir.

IMO nine19's point is not emphasized often enough.
The founding fathers recognized that we are endowed with our inalienable rights by our creator. The first and most important right recognized was life, a necessary part of which is self defense, hence the 2nd amendment of the constitution. The 2nd amendment is only recognition of the inherent right. The government is not giving us anything, it has nothing to give.
The second right; liberty, is one which we infringe upon by forming a government, we have agreed to give up some liberty in order to better defend our life. We want to be able to hire the "Rough men whose willingness to do violence allows gentlemen to sleep at night".
The government can not grant life (or health) or liberty. It may be able to help us secure our defense but only by infringing our liberty.
The more the government does for us the more liberty it takes from us.

The UN is of course the ultimate hoax; it would take all of our liberty and in turn destroy our security.

 

[Niner19]

We want to be able to hire the "Rough men whose willingness to do violence allows gentlemen to sleep at night".

Very well said. I love this quote... it is familiar (founding father?) but I do not know the source. Who said it?

thanks

 

[oldRoger]

George Orwell

It is a quote from George Orwell, usually given as: "Gentlemen sleep peacefully in their beds each night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

It is not from one of his books, he used to lecture on liberty and I think that is its source. Some people have a great tendency to denigrate Law Enforcement and the Military until they are needed. Orwell was reminding us that we need them at all times.