SouthernBoy
Regular Member
I have gotten in discussions about this topic in the past and would like to get folks' opinions on this once again. I maintain that the president cannot enter into a treaty which restricts or outlaws a class of firearms or all firearms with a foreign entity. I base this on two factors. 1) The president is required to take an oath of office before he can assume his position as president of the United States. The salient portion of this simple oath is, "and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". 2) The senate takes an oath as well to the Constitution with a bit more verbiage of sworn allegiance.
With having taking these oaths, any president or member of the senate who acts outside of the oaths Constitutional confines is acting outside of the supreme law of the land which means any laws, treaties, or agreements so made are null and void.. i.e. dead on arrival.
Now we all know that presidents and members of both houses of congress have made all manner of illegal laws and such pretty much since the creation of this nation. However, something as fundamentally important to the survival of our liberty as virtually disbanding the Second Amendment would not only be illegal, but a clear act of treason. No such treaty would carry any weight even if it did make it through the senate and the president's signature. Illegal laws do not carry the obligation of obedience.
http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/
Thoughts?
With having taking these oaths, any president or member of the senate who acts outside of the oaths Constitutional confines is acting outside of the supreme law of the land which means any laws, treaties, or agreements so made are null and void.. i.e. dead on arrival.
Now we all know that presidents and members of both houses of congress have made all manner of illegal laws and such pretty much since the creation of this nation. However, something as fundamentally important to the survival of our liberty as virtually disbanding the Second Amendment would not only be illegal, but a clear act of treason. No such treaty would carry any weight even if it did make it through the senate and the president's signature. Illegal laws do not carry the obligation of obedience.
http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/
Thoughts?