Can the U.N. Gun Treaty Trump the Constitution?
THIS is how you fix things.
Ronald Reagan called this author's contributions, "immeasurable."
EMERGENCY - Lefty Survival Guide!
Get a Plain-English Gun Guide for your state.
shall be the supreme Law of the Land..."
It shouldn't, and the U.S. Senate won't ratify it (67 votes would be needed), but too many people in government would like to see international control over us, a main goal of the U.N. I'm not happy with the state of affairs I've described below, but all this will come to play and we don't want to be blindsided.
The bottom line is that the treaty will hold sway to the extent those in power can manage it. The media may lead the charge to hold the treaty out as a proper norm, and to declare America out of global compliance, even though it's only a proposal. And it gets more complicated.
Even if Hillary or Mr. Obama "sign" the proposed treaty, that has no legal weight, and it does not mean the treaty is signed and adopted and a matter of law (though I suspect the "news" media and the left may claim otherwise, forever). They'll invoke the Vienna Convention (below) for support.
Remember, the U.N. General Assembly must get the proposal and vote on it, though there is no number of votes needed to pass it per se. It exists in the ether forever, a convenient way to run an organization, eh?
We find out what's actually in the secret thing on July 27, if all goes as planned. It's not impossible that the negotiators will fail to come to agreement and nothing will be released. That sort of politicking is always a tool.
really infringe the Second Amendment?
My research shows that both the law and precedent, on whether a properly ratified treaty or the Constitution are in ultimate control of an issue, are scant and not dispositive. It depends on the actual treaty language in question, what it seeks to control, the part of the Constitution called into question, the claims presented by an aggrieved party and more. Virtually no language from the U.N. effort is publicly known at this time. The language of the Constitution, Article VI, is ruefully less than crystalline on this point.
Constitutional scholar Dave Kopel points out that: "The general question of to what extent treaties can be 'equal' to, or change, the Constitution is very unclear. Constitutional scholars spend a lot of time arguing about it, and there is no settled, general answer. The Supreme Court isn't about to overrule Missouri v. Holland (described below), but at least one recent decision by the Court indicates that there's a majority that regards the Missouri principle skeptically, and may chip away at it."
This was brought by Missouri to prevent a U.S. game warden from enforcing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918, and regulations made by the Secretary of Agriculture under it. This treaty between U.S. and Great Britain aims to protect certain migratory birds. Missouri claims the federal statute is an unconstitutional interference with the rights reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment, and threatens the sovereign right of the State as owner of the birds within its borders.
"It is said that a treaty cannot be valid if it infringes the Constitution, that there are limits, therefore, to the treaty-making power..." however, "The treaty in question does not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution. The only question is whether it is forbidden by some invisible radiation from the general terms of the Tenth Amendment." The decision is worth reading, linked above. Holmes says, "No doubt the great body of private relations usually fall within the control of the State, but a treaty may override its power," and he traces that back to Chief Justice Marshall. It's a short and circuitous decision.
Missouri lost. The treaty and statute made under it overruled the state's claimed sovereignty under the 10th Amendment.
The other case, Reid v. Covert, 351 U.S. 487 (1956), 354 U.S. 1 (1957) is about the jurisdiction in a court-martial murder conviction of a woman who killed her Air Force sergeant husband while in England (never a dull moment at the Supreme Court, eh?). Kopel notes that, "the military status-of-forces treaty with the UK cannot eliminate the 6th Amendment rights of American spouses of servicemen stationed in England. The case is generally regarded as standing for the principle that constitutional rights cannot be eliminated by a treaty." The case seems to me less on point than Missouri, which is to say neither answers the question as clearly as we may wish.
Attorney Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D., who has argued and won three gun-related cases at the Supreme Court, says that: "Reid v. Covert clearly states that a treaty may not be inconsistent with the Constitution. The difficult question will be whether specific treaties, such as restrictions on commerce in firearms, violate the Constitution. Courts are often blind to what appears obvious from the language of the Second Amendment (surprise surprise)."
One other high-profile expert points out that, "Treaties made 'under the Authority of the United States' are the supreme law, and any treaty made outside of the constitutional authority would not be." The problem there, as with the two cases cited above, is where those lines are drawn.
While some of us would surely and boldly draw the lines where they are "supposed" to be, i.e., in line with our natural and historic rights, the forces aligned against the Second Amendment have no problem arguing vigorously for its destruction, regardless of any of these details, and therein lies the greatest threat we face.
Anything in the U.N. ATT that works against the RKBA, even indirectly, will be cheered by the anti-rights advocates, with their "news" media allies leading the chorus. The ATT's rights-suppressing terms and conditions (if any) will be hailed as reasonable, common-sense gun controls with the weight of global consensus, and used to cast civil-rights supporters as Neanderthal throwbacks unworthy of civilization.
Many in Congress have already come out preemptively against any infringement in the treaty, but since we haven't seen the language it's impossible to say where that will fall. Would Congress object if the treaty says its goal is to help prevent crime and stop tyrants? Mr. Obama and Hillary have already voiced support for the still-secret U.N. effort.
Although the front end of a gun is supposed to protect against any tyrannical meddling, the cold-dead-fingers argument is little more than bumper-sticker rhetoric in modern times. Recall for example the Katrina debacle. Even the mere suggestion of such a thing (using gunfire to stop seemingly unconstitutional activity) could bring hellacious retribution just for the spoken words, let alone the use of force.
"The Treaty will create a U.N.-based Implementation Support Unit (ISU) which will become an engine of gun control around the world..."
"Not only that, the ATT would require countries to set up their own government agencies to track any guns that could be exported. 'Parties shall take all necessary measures to control brokering activities taking place within its territories … to prevent the diversion of exported arms into the illicit market or to unintended end users,' the draft reads."
to treaty, by the very terms of the C itself?
if the Senate doesn't ratify it?
Sure, but watch out for the Vienna Convention of 1969. As Kopel notes, this Convention was never ratified in the U.S., but "The State Department has adopted a policy of acting in compliance with it." Sort of like government without consent of the governed. Its effect on the ATT is unknown, once again a matter of some discretion. Kopel notes, "The VC does not require signed-but-unratified states to implement a treaty. It does require a state not to do things which would undermine the treaty."
Read it yourself. The key Articles for us are 18, 25 and 27 below (thanks for the legwork Charly).
1. The words of the Constitution are less than clear on whether a properly ratified treaty can override the terms of the Constitution itself. Scholars disagree on the point.
2. The two primary Supreme Court cases on the subject arrive at different results.
3. Anti-rights advocates will use anything they can in the treaty, even if it is not ratified, as a standard that should be lived up to.
4. The never-ratified Vienna Convention of 1969 can be used as a bargaining and propaganda tool against American rights.
5. This will ultimately resolve in the court of popular opinion.
To negotiate a legally binding instrument on the highest possible common international standards for the transfer of conventional arms.
o Scope - what weapons should be covered?
o Criteria - what situations should be taken into account by an exporting country when authorising a transfer?
o Implementation - what actions at the national, regional and global levels are needed to make an ATT work?
o Bring more transparency to the global arms market.
o Impair States' legitimate right to self-defence.
Alan, I don't think your whole Jobs and Work comparison is valid. I know many people with jobs who do not work (many of these are gov't employees). I also know many people who do not have jobs but work, really work. Volunteers mostly but there are others. WORK by definition = effort. JOB = paycheck and sometimes is understood as an entitlement. --Jim W.
I had to wrestle with that Jim, a few people made these points (like our mutual friend and economist Paul).
In the end, I had to go with it despite pre-release comments. We'll see how the public at large reacts.
You need to look at the words in a fresh light, move beyond old meanings, see the new.
My guarantee: You'll be able to pick this analysis apart. Don't. Resist that temptation, especially semantics, and exceptions you can dream up. Understand the distinction here -- at its highest level: Jobs and work are not the same thing. Government by its very nature can only make work.
Jobs are only created in the private sector.
That's why so-called government "jobs" program fail.
When government speaks of creating jobs, they lie.
You can't forget the doomsday scenario Y2K another stupid prediction. -Fred B.
Y2K was real, Fred. We spent countless billions repairing the systems. Hired thousands of retired COBOL and FORTRAN programmers to untangle the deep mess, remember that? The media went ahead and convinced everyone that it was a boogie-man myth of the lunatic fringe (right wing and "preppers" of course), even as they raced to fix their own systems, the lying snakes.
I had two Y2K failures myself. Needed to rent a car in Las Vegas on business in late 1999 and couldn't, because the system wouldn't accept my drivers license with an expiration date of 2002. (The counter gal falsified the papers and entered a bogus expiration date, invalidating the contract and insurance, but got me the car.) In my Bloomfield Press office, our computers could not gather a batch of orders if the date exceeded 1999, we had no way to take your order, FIND IT, and send you your goods. Apple circulated patches and fixes in the nick of time, or we'd have been out of business (or back to carbon paper). Y2K was not a fake. American ingenuity overcame the problem (as did techies the world over). Just don't let the media know, it would give them a bad day.
Sorry u are full of Krap and to allow guns everywhere makes u a target in a good poker hand. U lose the element of surprise.