Does UN trump US constitution?
I saw this while checking on UN gun treaty any thoughts?
Monday, November 16, 2009
Obama revives talk of U.N. gun control
Obama revives talk of U.N. gun control: "Arms Trade Treaty"
George Bush wouldn't have it, and George Bolton, his Ambassador to the United Nations fought it.
What is it?
It's the "UN Programme of Action on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons".
Mildly stated as a series of "Whereas" and "Therefore", and professing the right of the "individual" to possess weapons for defense, this measure is cunningly designed to provide justification for 'states' (or nations) to rigidly control the commerce in small arms and ammunition to anyone who doesn't represent a state or a nation. (See UN A/Res/63/23, and UN A/64/228, and pp. 3-5 of A/63/PV41 for example.)
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton isn't Bolton, and President Barack Obama isn't Bush. Between the two of them, Hillary and Obama are deliberately moving this nation toward the signing of a treaty which would force the United States to accept the supremacy of the United Nations to dictate National Policy in regards to the Second Amendment.
Here are the lead paragraphs to the WND article:
Gun rights supporters are up in arms over a pair of moves the White House made last month to reverse longstanding U.S. policy and begin negotiating a gun control treaty with the United Nations.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first announced on Oct. 14 that the U.S. had changed its stance and would support negotiations of an Arms Trade Treaty to regulate international gun trafficking, a measure the Bush administration and, notably, former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations John Bolton opposed for years.
Two weeks ago, in another reversal of policy, the U.S. joined a nearly unanimous 153-1 U.N. vote to adopt a resolution setting out a timetable on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, including a U.N. conference to produce a final accord in 2012.
"Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms," Clinton said in a statement. "The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area."
Gun rights advocates, however, are calling the reversal both a dangerous submission of America's Constitution to international governance and an attempt by the Obama administration to sneak into effect private gun control laws it couldn't pass through Congress.
This seems to reference to the "... international transfer of arms", but in fact it would affect the ability of every American to "Keep and Bear Arms". Or to purchase, exchange, trade or give firearms to every other person or merchant.
This isn't a Paper Tiger. You may be asking: "What's the big deal? The Second Amendment protects our rights. What we agree to in terms of International Trade has nothing to do with us."
The problem is that the United States is close to signing an International Treaty, and this is the single move which can immediately and irredeemably counter the U.S. Constitution, or any law.
Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution reads:
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
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.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
In other words, if the United States (in the person of President Obama) signs this treaty, and it is ratified by Congress, then all existing laws ... up to and including the Constitution ... are over-ruled.
Remember the words:
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.
That means exactly what it says.
If we enter into a treaty with the United Nations, and that treaty is or can be interpreted as disallowing the purchase or ownership of Small Arms, then that becomes the Law of the Land and it cannot be reversed by the Constitution, State Law, or any court in America.
This is exactly the kind of tool which any wanna-be Dictator would elect to impose his own private vision of a disarmed citizenry. In fact, I'm unclear on the process ... would it be necessary for this treaty to be ratified by Congress? Can the president sign this treaty and unilaterally impose disarmament on the strongest country on earth?
Just remember, the man in the White House is a very learned expert in side-stepping Congress and has proven it several times.