DOJ Says UN Arms Treaty Trumps US Constitution

Oh this bites. You heard all of them in DC including Barry saying this would never happen. This is treason anyway you lok at it. You know Holder isn't doing anything without the hotline to the WH ringing first. Just my overall opinion , but we're screwed now.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Eric Holder thinks to pull a fast one on the American People.Eric Holder filed a law suit with the United States Supreme Court that says United Nations treaty trumps the US Constitution on laws in the United States.

FreePatriot

reply to post by Hillbilly123069


As I said in another thread, " The constitution is the least read document in all of D.C.". It sickens me to think of all that have fought and died over the last 200 plus years, protecting and defending all that document's contents and then have some out of touch maniac with a law degree pick it apart! Obama and his entire administration needs to be removed immediately, by peaceful means of course. Treason at it's very definition.

If this is true,
It is time to clean your guns, boys and girls.

reply to post by butcherguy


I think they're going to have a very rude awakening if they think Americans will just succumb to that BS.

well , it was a good run while it lasted...

OK I seriously have to raise the BS Flag... these bastards have officially gone too far...

Here is a link that gives a bit more detail about this:

Washington Examiner

It seems that Holder and company are trying to backdoor the treaty into superceding our Constitution.
ETA: Here is a link about the case itself... SCOTUSBLOG[/ url]

[url=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=bond%20vs%20the%20united%20states&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org% 2Fwiki%2FBond_v._United_States_(2011)&ei=WnNzUqeCMJDlsATcuIH4Aw&usg=AFQjCNECwEeTr29NvDGWzWdiaN528sPulA&bvm=bv.55819444,d.cWc]Wikipedia: Bond vs the US

reply to post by Hillbilly123069

But the matter could be tied up in court for Years..I mean,this,if they tried to make a "gungrab" out of it-SURELY would lead to the largest class action lawsuit in recorded history? How many US citizens would file suit? Millions.There is no way they could pull this off,surely?

Sorry but this was posted twice at ATS already. You are the third.

So, they are claiming the Constitution is just like santa, jesus and the easter bunny, it is a lie told to all children to keep them in line?

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.

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.

The states didnt agree to it. Kerry signed it. I don't think that's about exceptionalism.

reply to post by Hillbilly123069


This has nothing to with local gun laws. That is clearly said in the treaty - please read before posting. This only requires countries participating create a national control system for exporting weapons so it would be clear were every firearm legally exported out of the country ends up at.

It does not affect local gun laws at all, so it is not in interference with second amendment. It is likely though that the prices of firearms might rise. US is the largest firearm exporter in the world, higher standards for exportation will require significantly more paperwork and control, which adds costs to companies, so they might rise the prices to balance it out, although it is a fact that it will not affect local laws for gun rights.

It is being quite visible which politicians are supporting gun companies either from personal beliefs, investments or some other reasons and which are not.

At the end such international laws are necessary, as these ensure that no company would supply both sides in order to profit. For example, currently it is not illegal for companies to sell firearms to North Korea or supply both sides in Syria at the same time in order to maximise the profit. No company should be allowed to legally sell firearms to known extremists groups, warzones, warlords or dictators, as it is clear what at least they will use the firearms for. This treaty makes it signifantly harder for companies to make such transactions legally, as every firearm. every bullet leaving US has to be tracked to in which shop in which country in which kind of shop it ends up at and it has to ensured that the firearm will reach that place.

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

KissMyWookiee
reply to post by butcherguy

 

I think they're going to have a very rude awakening if they think Americans will just succumb to that BS.

Indeed.A law that can't be enforced is not really real.The NRA saying"from my cold dead hands"may become reality.This is most certainly high treason!

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.

Nephalim

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.

The states didnt agree to it. Kerry signed it. I don't think that's about exceptionalism.

But,the states did agree when they ratified the constitution which allows the president to enter into treaties with the approval of 2/3 of the US Senate. If this is used as a backdoor to override the constitution I'm in complete disagreeance with it. However, the crux of this claim lies in how the feds are trying a microbiologist who is alleged to have used biological or chemical weapons against her husbands new girlfriend and an interpretation of how this COULD BE used in the future to circumvent the 2nd amendment. If you read the amicus it becomes a lot less cut and dry and I'm not sure that it will ever get to the point that the Libertarians seem to think. Let's hope I'm not wrong on that. 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. Whether by accident or design its just one of the saving graces built into the constitution.

Go ahead liberals, claim it isn't true and it'll never happen. Just like you claimed Death Panels would never happen. Just like you called everyone extremist for saying healthcare plans would be cancelled and costs would skyrocket. We're used to it. Stick your heads back in the sand. The end game for liberals is clearly to remove guns from Americans by any means necessary.

According to the US constitution Article VI, Clause 2

"....all treaties made, or which shall be made; under authority of the United States, shall be 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."

The United States government has no authority to act on gun legislation because of the 2nd amendment. Therefore any treaty or law signed by the federal government is null and void. Period

Here is the caveat the constitution protects the rights of the people of the states. US citizens are not those people and only have privileges and immunities granted by the US government. Citizens are a class of person created by the 14th amendment and are not synonymous with the people.

reply to post by peter vlar


I dunno. Just lost me for a bit.