UN ATT Killed - for those who hadn't heard

Let's get one thing straight. The only person who can legally sign an international treaty is the President. However, Hillary did announce not long ago that the new administration is not opposed to the treaty and signaled that it would be signed and that she would push to "have it ratified." So it's a given at this point that the treaty would have been signed had it made it out of committee. However, the 2/3 to ratify issue would have been tough.

It's possible that the treaty died only because the letter was written and the UN knows that without the US on board, it's pointless. Most of the other countries don't follow the treaties they sign anyway. They needed the US to be the main point.

As for Udall. He was not opposed to ratifying the treaty. Read that letter again. Nothing in there says I will not vote for this. What he uses is much the same wording that Hillary used when touting the treaty to be signed and ratified. They are trying to convince people that it would not affect the average person, only terrorists. However, much news has been reported that the treaty definitely included anit-2A language. One such ban was the outlawing of any firearm fed by magazine. Remember, you can have the right to bear arms as long as they are the ones we say you can... Udall sidestepped the fact that much of the treaty actually would have caused problems for the average US citizen that could violate 2A. And we all know that our current politicians are SO keen on upholding the Constitution...

carolina guy said:

A treaty is still subordinate to the Constitution. Period.

Click to expand...

Correction: A treaty is supposed to be subordinate to the Constitution, which is why all executive, legislative, and judicial officers in our government take an oath of office to our Constitution.

And gee - that works, right? Oh, heck no. Their oaths of office hasn't kept them honest -- Congress keeps the Supreme Court well-supplied with laws year after year SCOTUS finds un-Constitutional. We the people have kept them honest, namely by voting out the bastards who refuse to adhere to our Constitution.

In fact, the US Supreme Court has declared a total of 1,315 laws (as of 2002, the most recent year for which statistics are available; the database may be updated in 2012) unconstitutional using the process of judicial review.

The first time the Court declared a federal law unconstitutional was in Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion for Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803), in which he asserted Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because it extended to the Supreme Court an act of original jurisdiction not explicitly granted by the Constitution.

Unconstitutional and Preempted Laws 1789-2002
According to the GPO (Government Printing Office Database):

1789-2002 Acts of Congress Held as Unconstitutional..............................158

1789-2002 State Statutes held unconstitutional......................................935

1789-2002 City Ordinances held unconstitutional....................................222

1789-2002 State and City laws preempted by Federal laws.......................224

Total State, Local and Federal Laws Declared Unconstitutional................1,315

Total State and Local Law Preempted by Federal Laws..............................224

Total Laws Overturned, all governments..............................................1,539

These are merely the ones they overturned. Others, like Obamacare, stand in all their un-Constitutional glory.

Bottom line: Continued insistence that "all treaties are subordinate to the Constitution" is ostrich-like head-in-sand-hiding. You're deceiving yourselves! You're making an erroneous assumption that the President, all Supreme Court Justices, and all members of Congress will adhere to the letter of the law, when 235 years of history has consistently proven they do not.

We mustn't dare to allow this treaty to ever reach the Senate floor. What happened last week must be as far as this bill ever gets, lest we wake up one morning and find it's been incorporated into public law, regardless of what the Constitution says.

mobiushky, I think we wound up agreeing with one another, particularly your comment, "we all know that our current politicians are SO keen on upholding the Constitution..." So, hope you don't think I was countering your argument. I wasn't. The info in my post substantiates it.