Aspen may become hub for United Nations effort
Denver Business Journal
Date: Monday, March 19, 2012, 6:07am MDT
The United Nation's Mountain Partnership may find its North American hub in Aspen, the Aspen Daily News reports.
The partnership, which has members in North America but not a centralized presence, is preparing for a global environmental conference in Brazil this summer. Not wanting North America to go unrepresented, a group called the Aspen International Mountain Foundation jumped in with a report on North American mountains and the issues facing them.
Efforts are now under way to see that Aspen fills the role of North American hub.
What is AIMF?
The Aspen International Mountain Foundation (AIMF) is a Colorado nonprofit corporation dedicated to promoting sustainable development in the world's mountain communities. Formally organized in 2001 in the heart of the Rocky Mountains, AIMF evolved over a decade of working collaboratively with the United Nations' Environment Program (UNEP), the City of Aspen, the Aspen Institute, Aspen Sister Cities, and other public and private organizations that produced a series of international conferences focusing on issues facing mountain communities.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
.what IS this "UN small arms treaty" business anyway? I've actually seen TV commercials here so it would appear to be more than Email rumor.
It is fair to say though...The current case being chosen adds an emotional aspect that might kick that door open wider for them in America than they've previously been able to get. If so, it'll be the first of much to follow, I'm fairly sure.
Text It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.
What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?
While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:
1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
5. In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.
Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.
Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by queenofswords
The head money case is where to start in determining how foreign treaties are integrated into US law. SCOTUS in that case ruled foreign treaties are subordinate to the constitution. It also noted that no foreign treaties can remove or bestow any authority that is not specifically granted / prohibited by the Constitution.
As far as the second amendment goes -
District of Columbia v. Heller
McDonald v. Chicago
The second amendment is applied to the individual. The only way that guns are going away would be to remove / edit the 2nd amendment and I dont see that happening at all at any point in the foreseeable future.
Any foreign treaty the US signs makes that treaty a part of the Federal body of law. Because of that those treaties can be defined by the courts / congress in terms of legality and constitutionality.
American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. This was held, for instance, in the Head Money Cases. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S.
Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid v. Covert. The Supreme Court could rule an Article II treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has not yet done so.
In Goldwater v. Carter, Congress challenged the constitutionality of then-president Jimmy Carter's unilateral termination of a defense treaty. The case went before the Supreme Court and was never heard; a majority of six Justices ruled that the case should be dismissed without hearing an oral argument, holding that "The issue at hand ... was essentially a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition." In his opinion, Justice Brennan dissented, "The issue of decision making authority must be resolved as a matter of constitutional law, not political discretion; accordingly, it falls within the competence of the courts". Presently, there is no official ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress, and the courts also declined to interfere when President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew the United States from the ABM Treaty in 2002, six months after giving the required notice of intent.
The UN has been actively working to disarm private individuals and a fair number of nations for thirty years. From its inception in 1982 to the current United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, the organization promotes not only nuclear disarmament, but also and perhaps most especially “disarmament efforts in the area of conventional weapons, especially land mines and small arms…” (1) And 3 decades of effort have resulted in a program which hopes to impose international standards on virtually everything having to do with the types of weapons owned by some 130 million American citizens. For in its “Working Outline,” ISACS means to create and make mandatory:
1.) National controls over the manufacture of small arms and light weapons
2.) National controls over the end-user and end-use of internationally transferred small arms and light weapons
3.) National controls over the access of civilians to small arms and light weapons
4.) Stockpile management over both storage and DESTRUCTION of weapons and ammunition
5.) International legal cooperation, criminal offenses and investigations (2)
Phase 1 in the United Nations scheme is the same that has been dreamed of for years by gun grabbing organizations in the United States, mandatory and universal gun registration. Offered under the ISACS protocol as a necessary means for the tracing of weapons which have been put to illegal use, ISACS means to collect, catalogue and offer to law enforcement agencies worldwide the following information on every gun owned by either state or private citizen: make, model, caliber, serial number, country of manufacture, physical characteristics such as barrel length, type of action, magazine capacity and naturally all pertinent information on the owner. Of course pictures are also preferred!
According to its project summary, this immense, internationally accessible data base would make possible “…the timely and reliable domestic tracing of illicit small arms and light weapons from their manufacture, import…up to the last legal possessor of the weapon…” Naturally the ability to trace ammunition would also be mandatory which means all bullets would have to be marked and their purchasers made part of the same worldwide network responsible for the tracking of guns! (2)
After the global system of registration has been adopted by each UN member nation, Phase 2 of the ISACS plan will be implemented. And that of course involves the “Control Standards” incorporated in the ISACS acronym. This part of the scheme is defined as the ability of the United Nations to “work as one” with the nations of the world, or more properly, to impose standards of conduct and performance on a worldwide basis, blissfully ignoring the various laws of each nation along with the rights of their citizens.
Although professing to support the Second Amendment during her presidential election bid, Hillary Clinton is not generally known as a gun rights enthusiast. She has been a long-time activist for federal firearms licensing and registration, and a vigorous opponent of state Right-to-Carry laws. As a New York senator she ranked among the National Rifle Association’s worst “F”-rated gun banners who voted to support the sort of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans’ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. He also served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago during a period between 1998-2001when it contributed $18,326,183 in grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.
Originally posted by mustangill
OMG, do you people not see what is happening? Its a race to the white house and Travon Martin is being used as a sling shot,...to get more votes.
NAACP President Benjamin Jealous was part of the delegation to Geneva arguing that laws requiring voters to show ID violate civil and human rights by suppressing election participation, particularly from minorities, USA Today reported. Currently, 30 states have voter ID laws, seven of which were enacted last year.
The U.N. has no authority over American states, but Jealous told reporters last week part of the goal is to “shame them.”
“The power of the U.N. on state governments historically is to shame them and to put pressure on the U.S. government to bring them into line with global standards, best practices for democracy,” Jealous said, according to NPR. “There are plenty of examples — segregation of the U.S. to apartheid in South Africa to the death penalty here in the U.S. — of global outrage having an impact.”