It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DOJ Says UN Arms Treaty Trumps US Constitution

page: 2
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   

oblvion
reply to post by buster2010
 


wrong'it sets the precident that international treaaties can and do trump american laws. that is against the law. as no treaty can be entered that is conflict with the law, otherwise the treaty, signed or not, is null and void by default.


It says right in the treaty it changes no laws in any nation that signs it. The UN even has a resolution stopping that from happening. The resolution explicitly states that it is “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.” This only applies to international arms sales and the Constitution doesn't protect you outside the states.

edit on 1-11-2013 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   

buster2010
This treaty will change no laws here in the states. Cruz is just running his mouth without checking any facts.

The fact of the matter is that the DOJ has filed with the court, stating that International treaties can be used as law in the US.
The treaty that they are citing in the case that I linked to is not the UN 'Gun Ban' treaty, but we all know how this works. Once they get the court to agree with their stance, they will use every international treaty that they can in US court cases.

ETA: The UN 'gun ban' treaty wording means nothing here. If the SCOTUS decides that an international treaty can supercede US law, the DOJ will use the treaty to enforce international law as they choose to.




. The resolution explicitly states that it is “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”

I read that as.... It is the right of the government to regulate transfers and ownership. Once the SCOTUS says that International treaties can be used as law inside the US, they will regulate according to the treaty... as they desire.


edit on 1-11-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   
No law, foreign or domestic trumps the Constitution of the United States of America. No presidential order, no international treaty, nothing.


supremacy clause n. Article VI, section 2 of the U. S. Constitution which reads: "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 notwithstanding." Thus a Supreme Court ruling can be binding on state courts if involving a constitutional issue.


To state in open court, to even bring the argument to the SCOTUS is an act of treason under Article 3 of the Constitution itself.


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


Any country that would seek to usurp the Constitution by way of international treaty is guilty of trying to overthrow the government of the United States and therefore can be considered an enemy of America. Any American, private citizen or member of any of the three branches of government that offer that enemy aid in the usurpation is clearly guilty.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   

buster2010

oblvion
reply to post by buster2010
 


wrong'it sets the precident that international treaaties can and do trump american laws. that is against the law. as no treaty can be entered that is conflict with the law, otherwise the treaty, signed or not, is null and void by default.


It says right in the treaty it changes no laws in any nation that signs it. The UN even has a resolution stopping that from happening. The resolution explicitly states that it is “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.” This only applies to international arms sales and the Constitution doesn't protect you outside the states.

edit on 1-11-2013 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)
But if allowed to go forward, it sets the legal precident that a treaty can and does trump american law.

that is not not a place i am willing to ever go.

sorry about spelling and all, i am typing on a wii it blows alot



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   
This is why I absolutely hate Eric Holder. The man knows nothing about the Constitution and does everything in his power to subvert it. He should be kicked out of office and all perks of the job stripped from him.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 




No law, foreign or domestic trumps the Constitution of the United States of America. No presidential order, no international treaty, nothing.

Unless the Supreme Court says it does.

Read the ruling on the Affordable Care Act. The Chief Justice wrote a convoluted opinion describing at length the different ways that it is Unconstitutional, yet, after three pages, does a turnaround and says that the Court must try to salvage laws whenever possible??? Explain that one to me!

What a bunch of CRAP.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   

butcherguy
reply to post by Helious
 




No law, foreign or domestic trumps the Constitution of the United States of America. No presidential order, no international treaty, nothing.

Unless the Supreme Court says it does.

Read the ruling on the Affordable Care Act. The Chief Justice wrote a convoluted opinion describing at length the different ways that it is Unconstitutional, yet, after three pages, does a turnaround and says that the Court must try to salvage laws whenever possible??? Explain that one to me!

What a bunch of CRAP.
EXACTLY



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
I'm sure that they believe that the UN is the world government - appointed - not elected where here in the states it's completely different - they are selected not elected.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
This is why I absolutely hate Eric Holder. The man knows nothing about the Constitution and does everything in his power to subvert it. He should be kicked out of office and all perks of the job stripped from him.


Well actually I'd say he knows an awful lot about the constitution.

Which is what that makes him dangerous if he is trying to subvert it...



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   

butcherguy
reply to post by Helious
 




No law, foreign or domestic trumps the Constitution of the United States of America. No presidential order, no international treaty, nothing.

Unless the Supreme Court says it does.

Read the ruling on the Affordable Care Act. The Chief Justice wrote a convoluted opinion describing at length the different ways that it is Unconstitutional, yet, after three pages, does a turnaround and says that the Court must try to salvage laws whenever possible??? Explain that one to me!

What a bunch of CRAP.


You're completely right, unfortunately the founders didn't leave us with remedy beyond the SCOTUS. I do however believe, even though I know there is corruption within the SCOTUS as evidenced by the ACA decision that they know there is a line that can not be crossed without serious backlash, any ruling of this kind for international treaties to be the supreme law of the United States, trumping the Constitution is not just inching a toe across that line, it is a full running leap across it and I don't think it would be tolerated.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Hillbilly123069
 


I get so tired of waiting on them to actually DO something, rather than just standing around and beating their gums together.

Come on now - ENFORCE it, bitches! Let's get this party started. Come on and have a go at ENFORCING it. I'm ready whenever y'all are.

Come get some.

Molon Labe.

Their treaty ain't worth the paper it's written on. I didn't sign it. My senator didn't ratify it.

I ain't bound by it. I keep my own promises - I see no logical reason to keep promises some ditz made claiming it was on my behalf... I can speak for myself.

Re: US "treaties" - Tecumseh LIVES!



edit on 2013/11/1 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 




You're completely right, unfortunately the founders didn't leave us with remedy beyond the SCOTUS.

Their writings allude to the remedy.
Something about the blood of tyrants watering the tree of liberty.....



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 

I feel the same way.
Let's party.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 



As for having to change the constitution because of a treaty... no. treaties don't alter the constitution, only a new amendment can do that and it takes a heck of a lot more effort than 2/3 of the Senate agreeing.

I'm sure it does. But if the American people (as represented by their government, as represented by John Kerry) sign an international treaty, are they not duty-bound to honour it? It would be a strange conception of honour that replied 'no' to that question. If the treaty is unconstitutional and it proves impossible to change the constitution, then the US should repudiate the treaty. Of course, as you point out, the consequences of that may be unpleasant.

And of course, as you also point out, this is really all about a bunch of political opportunists out for what capital they can make. The US can keep the treaty and its constitution without getting into a constitutional or ethical bind. But by the time the posturing bumpkins on their tea-chests as soapboxes are done, half the population of the USA won't know that.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   
They always give Holder the really nasty jobs don't they?
Fast and Furious, now this gun treaty.
Reminds me of Old Janet Reno and her Waco waffle.
Only Holder isn't even afraid of Congress or the press apparently.
If they think they're going to slap this on the American people by decree they got another thing coming.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Riffrafter
 


Hmm... Good point. In either case, he is a huge danger to our country and its established institutions.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Final approval for any treaties made with foreign nations or bodies must be approved by the US Senate with a 2/3 majority. The Senate doesn't ratify treaties, it either approves or rejects a ratification of resolution as submitted by the President.
www.senate.gov...

That ain't gonna happen.
If it does all Hell will break loose.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Now that everyone is good and mad, can someone link a quote from the DOJ making the statement that is claimed in the OP's linked blog post?



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Astyanax
reply to post by Hillbilly123069
 


I'm sure it sounds like treason to a hillbilly.

If your country is a signature to an international convention, it is so bound. If the convention is in conflict with your constitution, you must change your constitution.

Enough of this childish exceptionalism.


No, I'm sorry. The states created the Federal government, not the other way around. Hence, the states, via the Senate have to ratify any treaty for it even to approach binding and even then the COTUS is the supreme law of the land above treaty.

This is to prevent our sovereignty which we fought so hard against the odds to gain from being signed away from one or maybe two people.

I don't care what the rest of you think about it. If we wanted to be like you, our ancestors never would have left.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


I'm ready for "hell to break loose"...

Molan labe



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join