Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: examiner.com - Supreme Court to rule on whether treaties break constitutional bonds

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    examiner.com - Supreme Court to rule on whether treaties break constitutional bonds

    http://www.examiner.com/article/supr...tutional-bonds

    SNIP

    . . .

    The Obama Administration’s Department of Justice is expected to continue to argue before the Supreme Court in this case that the federal government may expand its powers over the people and the states by way of international treaties, notwithstanding the fact that this “effects a change in the sensitive relation between federal and state criminal jurisdiction.” If the Supreme Court agrees with the Department of Justice, then it will be clear that entering into an international small arms treaty would provide the federal government potentially unlimited power to regulate firearms.

    No matter what you think now, everybody better grab some popcorn and pay attention. The stakes are high and the Supreme Court has, as noted by Ilya Somin, not only issued a "rare unanimous decision on a federalism issue" (Tenth Amendment standing), but subsequently granted certiorary on the merits in "one of the rare cases that get to the Supreme Court twice."

    . . .

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Already has been ruled on again and again ... I would not expect any different result. If so, all hell may break loose.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Already has been ruled on again and again
    Cite please!

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by rpyne View Post
    Cite please!
    "This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.


    here's one ....

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    518
    Let me make sure I understand this. Would the path to the executive branch doing this look like this?:

    Step one:
    President signs UN gun ban treaty. For the sake of the example, say that treaty has universal gun registration requirement and bans certain handguns, most semi-automatic rifles, and magazines over 10 rounds. No private sales. Maybe more. Kind of a left wing wish list for gun control.

    Step two:
    Senate ratifies it. They have to get 3/4 of senators to approve, so that's a stretch, even for this crowd. No house vote required.

    Step three:
    Write and enforce regulations via BATFE that implement ALL of the terms of the treaty. Those regulations would, presumably, have both criminal and civil consequences.

    Constitutional issues aren't a problem as they aren't all banning guns, just some guns, as they've already done over the years. There's nothing in the constitution that says they can't have universal gun registration, just some silly statues that say that, and even the Heller decision allows for "reasonable" gun controls.

    Could they really do this?

  6. #6
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Please keep in mind that we are talking about a President and administration that has shown nothing but contempt for the Constitution, the Congress, and the citizenry. The question is, "Could they do this?" (from markand). And, unfortunately, the answer is "Yes, as long as they are willing to ignore the Constitution and the Congress.

    Will it work? Up to a point. When the people, not the parasites, wake up and realize that their rights are rapidly going down the toilet, then you will probably see some bloodshed. Please keep in mind that I am in no way advocating such measures. But even the most beaten-down dog has a point beyond which you cannot push it. If you try, it will turn on you and tear your throat out.

    There are already significant numbers of people who are becoming very disturbed at what they are seeing. Examples of this are:

    1. Increasing militarization of police departments nationwide.
    2. Perceived decreased accountability of both the police departments and the politicians.
    3. Perceived favoring of certain groups over other groups. This is a "divide and conquer" tactic and, whether folks want to admit it or not, is being pretty skillfully used.
    4. At least one person I am aware of has been arrested and committed for psychiatric evaluation based on no more than anti-government comments on Facebook. Here is the story: http://communities.washingtontimes.c...acebook-posts/
    5. Federal government expanding more and more and intruding much more into the affairs of the citizenry. A huge amount of that expansion is, if not illegal, then extra-legal. There is no provision in the Constitution that I can find for the appointment of "czars".
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by markand View Post
    Let me make sure I understand this. Would the path to the executive branch doing this look like this?:

    Step one:
    President signs UN gun ban treaty. For the sake of the example, say that treaty has universal gun registration requirement and bans certain handguns, most semi-automatic rifles, and magazines over 10 rounds. No private sales. Maybe more. Kind of a left wing wish list for gun control.

    Step two:
    Senate ratifies it. They have to get 3/4 of senators to approve, so that's a stretch, even for this crowd. No house vote required.

    Step three:
    Write and enforce regulations via BATFE that implement ALL of the terms of the treaty. Those regulations would, presumably, have both criminal and civil consequences.

    Constitutional issues aren't a problem as they aren't all banning guns, just some guns, as they've already done over the years. There's nothing in the constitution that says they can't have universal gun registration, just some silly statues that say that, and even the Heller decision allows for "reasonable" gun controls.

    Could they really do this?
    You forgot a step 2.1 ... bullets start flying in DC

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711
    Quote Originally Posted by markand View Post
    Let me make sure I understand this. Would the path to the executive branch doing this look like this?:

    Step one:
    President signs UN gun ban treaty. For the sake of the example, say that treaty has universal gun registration requirement and bans certain handguns, most semi-automatic rifles, and magazines over 10 rounds. No private sales. Maybe more. Kind of a left wing wish list for gun control.

    Step two:
    Senate ratifies it. They have to get 3/4 of senators to approve, so that's a stretch, even for this crowd. No house vote required.

    Step three:
    Write and enforce regulations via BATFE that implement ALL of the terms of the treaty. Those regulations would, presumably, have both criminal and civil consequences.

    Constitutional issues aren't a problem as they aren't all banning guns, just some guns, as they've already done over the years. There's nothing in the constitution that says they can't have universal gun registration, just some silly statues that say that, and even the Heller decision allows for "reasonable" gun controls.

    Could they really do this?
    Sort of - but this would not be the only path - by enactig a treaty that purports to even regulate guns at all, the federal government would then have power it does not now have, e.g., to regulate the transfer, possession, or carry of guns generally. Arguably the executive could then issue regulations criminalizing conduct without Congress even enacting a statute.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    518
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    Sort of - but this would not be the only path - by enactig a treaty that purports to even regulate guns at all, the federal government would then have power it does not now have, e.g., to regulate the transfer, possession, or carry of guns generally. Arguably the executive could then issue regulations criminalizing conduct without Congress even enacting a statute.
    That's the part that concerned me. Once such a treaty is ratified, the executive branch might be able to implement civil and criminal penalties without any further action by congress. Could congress even repeal such executive regulations, since they presumably would be in compliance with the terms of said treaty?

  10. #10
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by markand View Post
    Let me make sure I understand this. Would the path to the executive branch doing this look like this?:

    Step one:
    President signs UN gun ban treaty. For the sake of the example, say that treaty has universal gun registration requirement and bans certain handguns, most semi-automatic rifles, and magazines over 10 rounds. No private sales. Maybe more. Kind of a left wing wish list for gun control.

    Step two:
    Senate ratifies it. They have to get 3/4 of senators to approve, so that's a stretch, even for this crowd. No house vote required.

    Step three:
    Write and enforce regulations via BATFE that implement ALL of the terms of the treaty. Those regulations would, presumably, have both criminal and civil consequences.

    Constitutional issues aren't a problem as they aren't all banning guns, just some guns, as they've already done over the years. There's nothing in the constitution that says they can't have universal gun registration, just some silly statues that say that, and even the Heller decision allows for "reasonable" gun controls.

    Could they really do this?
    This is incorrect. The requirement is two-thirds present, which means the senate could convene at 2:00am Christmas morning and attempt a two-thirds vote with those present.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  11. #11
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    This is incorrect. The requirement is two-thirds present, which means the senate could convene at 2:00am Christmas morning and attempt a two-thirds vote with those present.
    If it's a treaty that big it's going to be a full house. i doubt any senators are staying home when a vote on a gun treaty is coming down
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  12. #12
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    If it's a treaty that big it's going to be a full house. i doubt any senators are staying home when a vote on a gun treaty is coming down
    Let's hope you're right on this. But nothing surprises me with the clowns in Washington be it the house, the senate, or 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by markand View Post
    Constitutional issues aren't a problem as they aren't all banning guns, just some guns, as they've already done over the years. There's nothing in the constitution that says they can't have universal gun registration, just some silly statues that say that, and even the Heller decision allows for "reasonable" gun controls.
    You said "...and even the actual Heller decision allows for "reasonable" gun controls."

    Cite please! And no you may not cite the Brady Campaign or a media article (of which there are many)!

    Cite any point in the Heller Decision that allows for "reasonable" gun controls.

    It ain't in there folks! Pure Brady Campaign fiction that even the gun folks have come to believe.

    The only thing that the Heller Decision stood for was that the Second Amendment was not absolute (whatever that means)! However, no where did the Heller Decision ever state that "reasonable" gun controls were allowed!
    Last edited by OC4me; 11-12-2012 at 08:54 AM.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    You said "...and even the actual Heller decision allows for "reasonable" gun controls."

    Cite please! And no you may not cite the Brady Campaign or a media article (of which there are many)!

    Cite any point in the Heller Decision that allows for "reasonable" gun controls.

    It ain't in there folks! Pure Brady Campaign fiction that even the gun folks have come to believe.

    The only thing that the Heller Decision stood for was that the Second Amendment was not absolute (whatever that means)! However, no where did the Heller Decision ever state that "reasonable" gun controls were allowed!
    Am I correct in presuming that you have not actually read Heller, which is available on-line from many sources, and that you are asking someone to do your basic research for you? This "allowance" has been a bone of contention, discussion, and debate from the day the decision was handed down. It is darned near universally known and understood - you being the primary exception.

    The rule to cite to authority was complied with when markand mentioned Heller - it's now up to you to go read the thing and either find it or come back and challenge its existence based on your not being able to find it.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Am I correct in presuming that you have not actually read Heller, which is available on-line from many sources, and that you are asking someone to do your basic research for you? This "allowance" has been a bone of contention, discussion, and debate from the day the decision was handed down. It is darned near universally known and understood - you being the primary exception.
    Sorry Skidmark, the presumption is not valid. I have indeed read the Heller Decision. I have one of those official hard copies that are sent out directly from the Supreme Court to Citizens upon request. I've been through digital copies of it too. I have looked at the textual context surrounding every occurrence of the term 'reasonable' contained in the Heller Decision. I do challenge the assertion that ‘reasonable’ gun control is explicitly allowed under the Heller Decision.

    As Tom Gresham says “A lie left unchallenged becomes the truth.” I’m not picking on the poster nor taking issue with you as you are a respected contributor to this forum. I’m simply trying to educate fellow gun-owners who may have come to believe some of the misconceptions fostered by the usual suspects (Brady Campaign, etc.). Most gun owners are familiar with the spin, like the myth that the Heller Decision held that the Second Amendment only applied to the home* (fortunately, most of us have not fallen for that intentional distortion). Sadly, however, the misconceptions about the Heller Decision have not stopped there and I just wanted to challenge yet another myth that seems to have succeeded in taking on the aura of ‘truth’, when in fact it is not.

    To demonstrate the fallacy of the ‘reasonable gun controls are allowed' myth, I am simply asking for a citation of the text 'within' Heller where it specifically states 'reasonable' gun controls are permissible. I can't find such an assertion in Heller. It is not there. Anyway, 'reasonable' is such a low bar that it would effectively render the Second Amendment meaningless even if it were proved to be so.

    Let me repeat, I cannot find within the Heller Decision itself a specific statement to the effect that 'reasonable' gun control is allowed. Although the Heller Decision contains a limited list of restrictions whose Constitutionality was to be presumed (see list below), that is not the same as a holding that 'reasonable' is the standard by which future gun control would be judged. On the contrary, the exact level of scrutiny was left undecided with the exception of rational review being ruled out in the case of a total prohibition on possession of a type of arm (handguns) as well as laws rendering firearms inoperable for immediate self-defense.

    The statement within Heller that the Second Amendment is 'not unlimited' can in no definitive way be described as an automatic endorsement of 'reasonable’ as defining the point at which the Constitutional protections secured by the Second Amendment cease to exist.

    Here is what Heller said in a nutshell:

    Not unlimited, i.e. no right to keep and carry any weapon (this means no nuclear weapons, nerve gas and certain other yet-to-be-defined dangerous weapons) in any manner (can’t carry in an overtly threatening way) and for whatever purpose (must be for self-defense or other lawful activity).

    Furthermore, concealed weapons prohibitions; bans on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, prohibition on the carrying of firearms in sensitive places; and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms were presumptively** constitutional.

    *The 'decision' itself was limited to the home, not that the Second Amendment was limited to the home.

    **Strictly speaking this means nothing more than a shift in the burden of proof away from the government with respect to any future legal challenges to the aforementioned restrictions. That burden of proof may or may not be met; only time will tell.
    Last edited by OC4me; 11-12-2012 at 02:19 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    It is unfortunate that Heller was a cop of one type or another. He did/does not have a problem with licensing. What is clear is that the Heller decision told a "federally controlled enclave" that it could not violate the "federal constitution." The majority opinion does cite state supreme courts (GA and TN) that opined that OC "bans" are unconstitutional (at the state level). It is likely that a future 2A decision to "clear up the remaining questions regarding the 2A" will likely hold that OC can not be banned. SCOTUS can not hold (force) a state to a more strict reading of a RKBA than what any specific state has found. Especially when the opinion holds that the feds are not to infringe upon the 2A.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •