………………….
……………………………………
July 27, 2012 the United Nations is expected to pass the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), and U.S. Secretary of State on behalf of the United States will sign said. ATT will supersede United States sovereignty, effectively render the 2nd amendment null and void, and require the confiscation of firearms from Americans by its federal government.
Per Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution the Senate must advise and consent to said treaty before the President has authority to ratify it. The Senate is currently populated with 53 Democrats, 47 Republicans, and 2 Independents, who caucus with the Democrats. Senate consent requires a 2/3rds majority, so 67 votes.
This stealth attempt by democrats to control firearms — a goal of theirs for many decades — can be stopped by the “nay” votes of 34 Republicans. I expect Majority Leader Harry Reid to bring this before the body between November 6 and the end of this term, during the “lame-duck” period.
While the right to bear arms is universal and independent of the 2nd amendment, this treaty, if ratified, would legally empower the federal government — in contradiction of unalienable rights from the Creator and in contradiction of that government’s one and only sole goal, responsibility, and authority — to leave individual human beings vulnerable and helpless against predators of all stripes — including and especially the government — who would violate their rights.
Needless to say, I’m advocating the immediate — It’s only two weeks away — targeting of the 47 Republican U.S. Senators with crystal-clear messages.
……………………………………
……………….
Meanwhile back at the ranch . . . .
Please be clear that President Obama’s rhetoric about continuing the tax cuts for the middle class, but not the rich, is an unequivocal commitment to driving the U.S. economy off the mid-January “fiscal cliff”. There are no permanent classes in America.
But, if we accept the false premise, then divide the population into income quartiles, the top 25% of earners pay 87% of federal income taxes, the middle 50% of earners pay 13% of federal income taxes, and the bottom 25% of earners pay zippo. The “middle class” with an effective tax rate of about 3% will have any benefit/cost of either extending or not be trivial. Meanwhile the effect of raising personal income tax rates on those who pick up 87% of the tab will cripple the whole of the economy.
I will mail. Georgia has a RINO in the Senate though.
Thanks, drrik. This should be a sine qua non! Nay or gone.
I believe that Texas’ Senators Cornyn and Hutchinson will vote against this but I am writing to them anyway! If we can’t rely on 34 Republicans to vote against this that is a sad predictor of our future. Of course, Justice Roberts let us down when the going got tough. Unlike Democrats who always toe the party line, Republicans seem to have squishy spines……
If we cannot get 47+ voted aye, it may be a signnal that Republicans have mentally cashed it in.
Doesn’t matter squat what Congress or the U.N. or anyone else says or does regarding this issue. Can’t take away what is mine bestowed upon me by my Creator. I can only give it away. Not going to happen. That decision was discussed and finalized years ago. And yes, the consequences for this decision have also been discussed over time. Done.
I don’t think that the UN or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama have any idea that ther are, maybe, 50 million deer hunters with rifles in the contiguous 48. Talk about fast and furious?
Well, there’s another aspect to this, of course.
First, as you said, Senate ratification requires 67 votes, and IMO there’s pretty much zero chance of that happening. Aside from the fact that any GOPer that would ratify such a treaty would kill his political career, a lot of Dems are going to avoid this like the plague for the exact same reason, on top of which there are actually some Dems who are pretty pro-gun. No, it’s DOA in the Senate.
But here’s the thing: no treaty can amend the Constitution. I’ve had this discussion a LOT lately (needless to say) and the Constitution is crystal clear in the two methods that can be used for amendment, and neither is by treaty.
An amendment requires either Senate ratification AND the ratification of 2/3 of the states (which requirement a treaty lacks), or a constitutional convention.
So, any such treaty that infringes on the 2nd Amendment is moot and void, right out of the box.
Now, some have pointed out that the Constitution states that a treaty is the “supreme law of the land”, and though this is true they misunderstand what that actually means. It means that a treaty supersedes any conflicting state law, and has equal weight to the Constitution and federal legislation. But it doesn’t supersede the Constitution itself, again for the reasons I’ve stated re amendment. Look at the phrasing in the Constitution:
“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;…”
Now here’s where the rubber meets the road:
“… and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Plain and simply, it’s stating that STATE constitutions and laws are subject to Federal supremacy, NOT that treaties are supreme to the US Constitution. And again, since the Constitution can’t be amended by a treaty, it’s void and moot.
I wish that the guy I saw in the mirror THIS morning were THAT smart and knowledgable. Thanks, BrianR.
Thanks for saying so. But my only leg up is that I’ve been in the gun battle since college days, back in the Pleistocene Era. So I’ve become pretty familiar with the Constitution.
Dick Morris has a different take, BrianR.
http://www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-end-run-on-gun-control-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Morris doesn’t seem to know much (anything) about the law and Constitution. He’s always been just a rabble-rouser, and I’ve never trusted anything he’s said. Don’t forget, he used to work for CLINTON.
I’d actually seen that clip before, and it was silly the first time I saw it, too. His assertions about the enactment and authority of treaties would get an “F” in a high school civics class.
What’s your take on Morris’ point about the Vienna Convention?
It’s a ridiculous case of bootstrapping his argument. Absurd!
First of all, though the US is a signatory to the Vienna Convention… THAT has never been ratified by the Senate, either. So it’s meanigless to us, and non-binding.
Second, it doesn’t do what he claims. It doesn’t put into force any treaty not properly ratified by a country’s process.
Most importantly, the same issues adhere to the Vienna Convention as to any other treaty: it can’t be used, even indirectly, as a means of amending our Constitution, simply as a point of law.
Let’s use another context, and take guns out of the picture. Let’s say we become signatory to a treaty that outlaws any criticism of the UN, and the Senate ratifies it. Do you think such a treaty would have ANY force of law in this country? The fact that it would curtail First Amendment rights to free speech would become the law in this country?
That’s the lens through which we have to view these ideas: are they enforceable as restrictions on ANY enumerated right?
Morris (and others) keeps making one assertion I think is preposterous: that Bat Ears and Hitlery are going to sign this thing in an election year. It’s particularly preposterous in light of the impossibility of ratification, and its unenforceability. Why would they do that? Why would two political-to-the-bone animals commit political suicide by doing that?
Good post, drpete. It would be amusing to see the Obama administration working behind the scenes to advance this treaty only to be shut down and embarrassed by republicans (and democrats!) squashing it in the senate.
No one is getting my guns.
This whole falicy of taxing the rich is a bad joke on the middle class. Anyone who thinks that a billionaire is going to pay a dime more is totally delusional. This tax is aimed at the upper middle class. It’s dsigned to increase the gap between middle class and rich. That’s why people like Warren Buffet are so for it, he won’t pay a penny more, but guys like I will.
I know, fallacy…def; thinking your brain works when you have a cold…
To be in the top 1% in 2009 took $344,000 in earnings. It’s now around $300k. To be in the top 25%, it took $66,000 in 2009. This is NOT about the upper-middle-class.