Western Rifle Shooters Association

Do not give in to Evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it

Friday, April 24, 2009

Codrea: Treaties

David leads us through the threat posed to American freedoms by international agreements.

Hint: Read Article 6, paragraph 2 of the USC as preparation (note: emphasis added):

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.

Remember the Democratic majority in the Senate?

Think the communist majority can persuade several RINOs to join them "for the common good"?

The best part: such a path will allow the 65 House Democrats to say (and mean) that they did not vote for any gun control measures.



Anonymous Anonymous said...

All treaties made in "pursunance" thereof. Are the supreme law of the land. Treaties made outside the constitutional protections are notwithstanding.
Thats just my read. Which will have little to do with reality i'm sure.....mthead

April 24, 2009 at 3:49 AM  
Blogger Brock Townsend said...

We shall remind all of those, way prior to any vote, that we shall hold them 100% accountable for this "anti-gun" vote, and they will not be in office next time.

April 24, 2009 at 4:44 AM  
Blogger Chris said...

The "Treaties" must be made "under the Authority of the US." And what is that? Those laws and treaties that are within the powers granted to the Federal Government, and not contrary to the rights preserved to the people and the States. So no treaty can overrule the Constitution.

I spoke with a member of the House that was also a professor of Constitutional law - who said as much.

So "them's the rules." But only if we the people maintain the milita and keep them that way!

April 24, 2009 at 4:56 AM  
Anonymous Doc Enigma said...

It'd be good to see what Dr. Vieira has to say on this question, as he's a Constitutional scholar and has argued before the SCOTUS and won.

Just a thought on the 'legality' of such a treaty.

But the other thing would be this: Sign and ratify all the treaties you want. Compliance and enforcement is a whole 'nother thing!

April 24, 2009 at 1:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Chris - a treaty cannot supercede the terms of the Constitution itself. You can no more ban guns within the US by treaty than you could establish any particular religion as the official religion of the United States, or hand over the sovereignty of the United States to some world government.

Also, and this is the real bottom line (because I simply don't trust the Supremes), I absolutely agree with Doc Enigma about compliance and enforcement - those will be a real BITCH for the ATF assclowns, and any of their fellow lettered agencies that try to enforce the terms of such a treaty.

April 24, 2009 at 4:56 PM  
Blogger Brock Townsend said...

"The Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties made by the executive branch."
The requirement for a two-thirds vote ensures that a treaty will need bipartisan support to be approved.
The Senate may also amend a treaty or adopt various changes, which may lead the other nation, or nations, to further negotiate the treaty.
Constitutional Provisions
Article II, section 2, of the Constitution states that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur." These few words are the cornerstone to a major part of our system of divided powers, checks and balances.

April 24, 2009 at 5:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1)The Bill of Rights was formulated to GUARANTEE (not give) pre-existing rights. States would not ratify the Constitution without these safeguards in place. In other words, Claues A (Article 6) is superseded by Clause B - the Bill of Rights.

2)Article 6 to me clearly states "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
I believe that "Constitution or Laws" means that of STATES only. And, if we truly read it for what it says, this includes only the 46 states, and does not speak to the four commonwealths at all. Again, another reason for #1 above.

3)Article 6 indicates that the Constitution (and Treaties made in conformance to same) are THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. How is that currently working out? Seems that we have a lot of laws incompatible with the Constitution.

April 24, 2009 at 10:22 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home