• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

One HELL of a Numb-Brained U.N. "whatever"

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
imported post

Source: U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

This treaty has been very carefully crafted to appear for all intents and purposes as a benign means of curbing illegal international gun trades.

However, it's also the very carefully crafted first step towards a ban on individual gun ownership/possession!

I would encourage all of you to read the fine print and ponder the situation, as it bodes not well for we honest, law-abiding citizens.

At all.

Write your Congressman. If you dare write the U.N., please do so as well.
 

MarlboroLts5150

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
407
Location
San Antonio
imported post

I've responded to 5 of these "treaty" threads...someone else take this...:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
 

Hunterdave

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
214
Location
Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Firstly, treaties must be ratified by the Senate ,then signed by POTUS.
Secondly, if a treaty is contrary to US Constitution,US law or state law,
the treaty is null and void.
Thirdly, this treaty does not even come up for proposal in the UN until 2012.

While it bares watching , it is not an immediate concern, as there are many
other fires to put out that are of immediate importance.


Taken care of, Marlboro!:)
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

Hunterdave wrote:
Firstly, treaties must be ratified by the Senate ,then signed by POTUS.
Secondly, if a treaty is contrary to US Constitution,US law or state law,
the treaty is null and void.

Thirdly, this treaty does not even come up for proposal in the UN until 2012.

While it bares watching , it is not an immediate concern, as there are many
other fires to put out that are of immediate importance.


Taken care of, Marlboro!:)
I was under the impression that the President often signs a treaty and then passes it to the Senate for Advice and Consent. I seem to recall that there are treaties out there that presidents have signed, but are not in force due to not having been even voted on in the Senate or not having garnered 2/3 of the votes.

Can you provide a citation for the bolded part?
 

Hunterdave

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
214
Location
Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
imported post

eye95 wrote:
Hunterdave wrote:
Firstly, treaties must be ratified by the Senate ,then signed by POTUS.
Secondly, if a treaty is contrary to US Constitution,US law or state law,
the treaty is null and void.

Thirdly, this treaty does not even come up for proposal in the UN until 2012.

While it bares watching , it is not an immediate concern, as there are many
other fires to put out that are of immediate importance.


Taken care of, Marlboro!:)
I was under the impression that the President often signs a treaty and then passes it to the Senate for Advice and Consent. I seem to recall that there are treaties out there that presidents have signed, but are not in force due to not having been even voted on in the Senate or not having garnered 2/3 of the votes.

Can you provide a citation for the bolded part?
Eyes, everything I have read on the subject says that after consent by the Senate
a treaty goes back to POTUS for ratification.

As for the bolded part; US Constitution Art VI says:

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 not withstanding.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

Hunterdave wrote:
eye95 wrote:
Hunterdave wrote:
Firstly, treaties must be ratified by the Senate ,then signed by POTUS.
Secondly, if a treaty is contrary to US Constitution,US law or state law,
the treaty is null and void.

Thirdly, this treaty does not even come up for proposal in the UN until 2012.

While it bares watching , it is not an immediate concern, as there are many
other fires to put out that are of immediate importance.


Taken care of, Marlboro!:)
I was under the impression that the President often signs a treaty and then passes it to the Senate for Advice and Consent. I seem to recall that there are treaties out there that presidents have signed, but are not in force due to not having been even voted on in the Senate or not having garnered 2/3 of the votes.

Can you provide a citation for the bolded part?
Eyes, everything I have read on the subject says that after consent by the Senate
a treaty goes back to POTUS for ratification.

As for the bolded part; US Constitution Art VI says:

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 not withstanding.
I believe that the underlined clause is saying that State Laws and State Constitutions do not override The Constitution, laws made according to the powers granted in The Constitution, and Treaties.
 

Hunterdave

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
214
Location
Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
imported post

eye95 wrote:
Hunterdave wrote:
eye95 wrote:
Hunterdave wrote:
Firstly, treaties must be ratified by the Senate ,then signed by POTUS.
Secondly, if a treaty is contrary to US Constitution,US law or state law,
the treaty is null and void.

Thirdly, this treaty does not even come up for proposal in the UN until 2012.

While it bares watching , it is not an immediate concern, as there are many
other fires to put out that are of immediate importance.


Taken care of, Marlboro!:)
I was under the impression that the President often signs a treaty and then passes it to the Senate for Advice and Consent. I seem to recall that there are treaties out there that presidents have signed, but are not in force due to not having been even voted on in the Senate or not having garnered 2/3 of the votes.

Can you provide a citation for the bolded part?
Eyes, everything I have read on the subject says that after consent by the Senate
a treaty goes back to POTUS for ratification.

As for the bolded part; US Constitution Art VI says:

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 not withstanding.
I believe that the underlined clause is saying that State Laws and State Constitutions do not override The Constitution, laws made according to the powers granted in The Constitution, and Treaties.
Eyes, sorry for the confusion. The underlined part was there when I copied it. I should have removed it. I underlined the part I believe to be relevant .

Justice Holmes wrote in Missouri v. Holland "acts of congress are the supreme law
of the land only when in pursuance of the Constitution.

Any treaty not pursuant to the Constitution would be null and void, if ruled by
SCOTUS to be unconstitutional.But, that could be the fly in the ointment.

Thomas Jefferson: “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treatymaking to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.”
 

noname762

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
198
Location
Where am I, WA, , USA
imported post

MarlboroLts5150 wrote:
I've responded to 5 of these "treaty" threads...someone else take this...:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
The UN wouldn't care much for my input. They can have my guns from the business end first. Then I upgrade.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

Hunterdave wrote:
eye95 wrote:
Hunterdave wrote:
eye95 wrote:
Hunterdave wrote:
Firstly, treaties must be ratified by the Senate ,then signed by POTUS.
Secondly, if a treaty is contrary to US Constitution,US law or state law,
the treaty is null and void.

Thirdly, this treaty does not even come up for proposal in the UN until 2012.

While it bares watching , it is not an immediate concern, as there are many
other fires to put out that are of immediate importance.


Taken care of, Marlboro!:)
I was under the impression that the President often signs a treaty and then passes it to the Senate for Advice and Consent. I seem to recall that there are treaties out there that presidents have signed, but are not in force due to not having been even voted on in the Senate or not having garnered 2/3 of the votes.

Can you provide a citation for the bolded part?
Eyes, everything I have read on the subject says that after consent by the Senate
a treaty goes back to POTUS for ratification.

As for the bolded part; US Constitution Art VI says:

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 not withstanding.
I believe that the underlined clause is saying that State Laws and State Constitutions do not override The Constitution, laws made according to the powers granted in The Constitution, and Treaties.
Eyes, sorry for the confusion. The underlined part was there when I copied it. I should have removed it. I underlined the part I believe to be relevant .

Justice Holmes wrote in Missouri v. Holland "acts of congress are the supreme law
of the land only when in pursuance of the Constitution.

Any treaty not pursuant to the Constitution would be null and void, if ruled by
SCOTUS to be unconstitutional.But, that could be the fly in the ointment.

Thomas Jefferson: “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treatymaking to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.”
The treaties clause lacks the "pursuance" language. A court may well determine sometime in the future that what you are saying is true. However, absent some other citation that treaties have to be constitutional, we have no guarantee that a future court will rule that way.

Thomas Jefferson sums up the problem nicely. He doesn't say that treaties can't overrule The Constitution. He laments the consequence of all-powerful treaties that can.
 

Hunterdave

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
214
Location
Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Treaties do not override the Constitution
In the same discussion Madison said: “Here, the supremacy of a treaty is contrasted with the
supremacy of the laws of the states. It cannot be otherwise supreme.” That is, a treaty cannot in
any other manner or situation be supreme.
Thomas Jefferson: “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treatymaking
to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.”


In anticipation that our president may sign one or more treaties that conflict with the
U.S. Constitution’s limited grant of power, several voices of alarm are contending that a treaty
can override, or in effect amend, our Constitution. Although that view has gained some currency,
it is a myth that contradicts the intent of those who framed the Constitution. And it violates any
reasonable interpretation of that document.
Origin of the Myth
The frightful idea that U.S. treaties with foreign nations supercede the Constitution has been
regularly promoted since the Eisenhower era.1 It was given a big boost in 1952 when Secretary
of State John Foster Dulles, a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR),
made the following statement:2
… congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas
treaty laws can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away
from Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the states and
give them to the Federal Government, or to some international body and they can cut
across the rights given the people by the Constitutional Bill of Rights.3
It would be hard to find a more preposterous assertion. Sadly, however, many citizens have been
led to believe that treaties do override the Constitution. Could anyone really think our founding
fathers spent four months in convention, limiting the size, power and scope of government, and
then provided for their work to be destroyed by one lousy treaty?
But one might object, what about Article VI? Article VI establishes the supremacy of U.S. laws
and treaties made within the bounds of the Constitution. It is called the Supremacy Clause,
because it places federal laws and treaties that are made pursuant to the Constitution above state
constitutions, laws. and treaties.
Some Important History
This was needed because, contrary to their agreement under the Articles of Confederation,
certain states had violated their trust and entered into treaties with foreign powers. During the
convention, Madison said: “Experience had evinced a constant tendency in the States to encroach
on federal authority; to violate national Treaties, to infringe the rights and interests of each
other.”4
State-made pacts often conflicted with peace and trade treaties wanted by the Confederation
Congress for the benefit of all thirteen states, making it hard for Congress to consummate better
agreements with other nations. This also led to fierce contention between the states in their effort
to monopolize the import of goods from Europe and the Indian tribes. But more serious dangers
arose in matters of security, for should one state be at war with a foreign power while a sister
state honors its peace agreement with the same enemy, the security of the entire Confederation
would be threatened.5
In an effort to head off such dangers, the Confederation Congress frequently attempted to nullify
state-made treaties in the state courts (there were no federal courts). But as might be expected,
the state judges ruled inevitably in favor of their own states, pursuant to the state laws and
constitutions.
The 1787 Convention corrected that problem by making certain only federal treaties would be
recognized as valid. In this light, it is not hard to understand why paragraph two of Article VI is
worded as follows:
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.
Upon ratification of the Constitution, the state treaties were nullified. Thereafter, only federal
treaties were recognized as supreme, regardless of any remaining state provisions to the contrary.
Moreover, under the new Constitution the founders established a Supreme Court, granting it
original jurisdiction over treaty controversies, and thereby removing from state judges
jurisdiction over treaty cases. In addition to quelling strife among the states, Article VI
accomplished a major objective of the Convention, mainly that of placing the United States in a
position to speak to the world with one voice.
United States treaties are created when proposed by the President, with the advice and consent of
the Senate. The power of the President and the Senate, in their treaty-making capacity, was never
intended to be a power greater than the Constitution.
Citizens who met in the state ratifying conventions (1787 to 1790) to examine with great care the
provisions of the proposed Constitution had a correct understanding of the Supremacy Clause.
During the ratifying debates, James Madison answered questions regarding the new national
charter and commented on the extent of the treaty-making power under Article VI:
“I do not conceive that power is given to the President and Senate to dismember the
empire, or to alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative
authority have this power. The exercise of the power must be consistent with the object of
its delegation.”6
In the same discussion Madison said: “Here, the supremacy of a treaty is contrasted with the
supremacy of the laws of the states. It cannot be otherwise supreme.” That is, a treaty cannot in
any other manner or situation be supreme.
Thomas Jefferson: “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treatymaking
to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.”
But we do have a Constitution. Its life and viability depend entirely on the small number of
citizens who 1) understand the document, and 2) who equally understand the forces at work to
destroy it. At this point enough time has passed, and enough false teachings have been
promulgated, to cause modern Americans to fall for the treaty power ploy. It is not surprising
that John Foster Dulles, a ranking member of the CFR, should in 1952 circulate the treaty-power
heresy that yet prevails.
It is time for serious reflection on the words of Edmond Burke, “The people never give up their
liberties but under some delusion.” Those who seek to preserve the sovereignty of the United
States must work energetically to expose the Dulles delusion — the ridiculous idea that treaties
have intrinsic powers greater than the Constitution.
1 In decades immediately prior to the Dulles speech, Supreme Court decisions had already begun to
enunciate the idea (see, for example, Missouri v. Holland in 1920 and United States v. Pink in 1942).
2 Dulles actually made this statement during a speech in Louisville on April 2, 1952, shortly before
Eisenhower appointed him Secretary of State.
3 Quoted by Frank E. Holman, Story of the Bricker Amendment, (New York Committee for Constitutional
Government, Inc., 1954), pp. 14, 15.
4 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Farrand, Vol. I, p. 164.
5 Benjamin Franklin’s Plan of Union, America, Vol. 3, p. 47.
6 Debates on the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed., second edition, Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott
Company, 1907, Vol. III, p. 514.
Don Fotheringham is considered one of the leading authorities on U.S. Constitution history and is an in demand guest lecturer on the subject.
 

Hunterdave

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
214
Location
Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
imported post

And more.From my research I have found many SCOTUS opinions that
establish the supremacy of law to be:
1. The US Constitution
2. Federal laws and treaties
3. State constitutions
4. State laws and regulations

Nothing overrides the Constitution!

In the Reid v. Covert case, it was an executive agreement (not a
treaty) between the United States and Great Britain that was in
question. However, in Part II, we find:
“MR. JUSTICE BLACK announced the judgment of the Court and
delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS, and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join.”

Significant excerpts include:
“At the time of Mrs. Covert's alleged offense, an executive agreement
was in effect between the United States and Great Britain which
permitted United States' military courts to exercise exclusive
jurisdiction over offenses committed in Great Britain by American
servicemen or their dependents.”

“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who
created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for
the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history
and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States
to exercise power under an international agreement without
observing constitutional prohibitions. ... In effect, such construction
would permit amendment of that document in a manner not
sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were
designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and
they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the
Senate combined.”

“There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court
has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the
Constitution over a treaty. ... For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133
U.S. 258, 267, it declared: The treaty power, as expressed in the
Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which
are found in that instrument against the action of the government or
of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the
government itself and of that of the States. It would not be
contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution
forbids, or a change in the character of the [p*18] government, or in
that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory
of the latter, without its consent.”

“This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of
Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity
with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is
inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders
the treaty null. ... It would be completely anomalous to say that a
treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an
agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that
instrument.”
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

Dave,

Thanks, it's nice to know that we already have a Supreme Court ruling saying that a treaty cannot change The Constitution. Many argue that a treaty can and, absent this ruling, I would worry what the courts would rule.

I am still curious about the rank ordering that you presented. If there is a court opinion validating that rank ordering, I would be concerned. The Constitution represents the granting of limited and enumerated powers to the federal government by the States. In any area that the federal government does not have the power to legislate, the States (and the People) reign supreme.

In areas where the feds have the power, the rank ordering is not necessary, as the States voluntarily gave the feds that power.
 

Hunterdave

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
214
Location
Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Eyes,

The ranking order that I posted was from two Constitutional scholars and is
gleaned from a plethora of SCOTUS opinions, that when taken together ,has
established this order. The Fed law rank is only meant to apply to powers
enumerated and delegated to them by the Constitution and only really used
by SCOTUS to determine opinion of constitutionality when one in the list is pitted against the other.

But, we all know how that enumerated powers thingy has worked out.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

Hunterdave wrote:
Eyes,

The ranking order that I posted was from two Constitutional scholars and is
gleaned from a plethora of SCOTUS opinions, that when taken together ,has
established this order. The Fed law rank is only meant to apply to powers
enumerated and delegated to them by the Constitution and only really used
by SCOTUS to determine opinion of constitutionality when one in the list is pitted against the other.

But, we all know how that enumerated powers thingy has worked out.
As silly as doing so might sound, I'd argue with those scholars. The danger in such a ranking is that it implies that the federal government is hierarchically above the States, which is the misconception that led to a lot of usurpation by the feds.

The States are sovereign and have voluntarily, through The Constitution, ceded some of their power to the central government. In matters where they have ceded that power, the feds are allowed to make law, but only because the States have permitted them to do so. In matters where the States have not ceded the power to the feds, State law should, of course, trump any federal law--which should never have been passed.
 

Hunterdave

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
214
Location
Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Eyes,

I believe that Art VI already establishes this order when kept in context of
enumerated powers.

I do ,however, agree about the usurpation of power by the Fed, most of which
occurred during the Civil War period and FDR and "his" commerce clause.
It is why the North and FDR were both wrong, but, that's a different story,
for a different time.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

Hunterdave wrote:
Eyes,

I believe that Art VI already establishes this order when kept in context of
enumerated powers.

I do ,however, agree about the usurpation of power by the Fed, most of which
occurred during the Civil War period and FDR and "his" commerce clause.
It is why the North and FDR were both wrong, but, that's a different story,
for a different time.
I don't think a plain-reading of Article VI establishes an order at all. Laws passed in accordance with the enumerated powers are law. States are not bound by laws not in accordance with the enumerated powers.

States passing laws regarding handguns made solely intrastate is a perfect example of this concept.
 

Hunterdave

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
214
Location
Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Art VI implies that the Constitution is supreme and all laws passed
must be pursuant thereto.
Fed laws and treaties are supreme law of the land, despite state
constitutions or laws to the contrary.

That is an order,within the enumerated powers.
The need for a list of ordered power is, I agree',
unnecessary and redundant.

The example you gave is outside of enumerated powers of the
Fed. They haven't figured out how to co-op intrastate into the
interstate commerce act yet, but they're trying!
 
Top