The Arms Trade Treaty- Rep from Illinois steps up
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > The Arms Trade Treaty- Rep from Illinois steps up

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-31-2011, 02:25 PM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Sonic82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Minneapolis,Minnesota
Posts: 2,901
Liked 749 Times on 477 Posts
Likes Given: 586

Default The Arms Trade Treaty- Rep from Illinois steps up

Congressman Joe Walsh (IL-8)-12/07/11 , Introduces Second Amendment Protection Act of 2011 H.R.3594 Congressman Joe Walsh (IL-8) introduced the Second Amendment Protection Act that would cut off all funding to the United Nations if the United States agrees to any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of American citizens. The United Nations has been trying for nearly a decade to move forward with the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). This treaty poses a very real threat to the sovereignty of the United States and the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.Congressman Joe Walsh : Latest News : Rep. Walsh Defends Constitution from United Nations


John R. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, says this:

"This has little or nothing to do with the international trade in conventional arms," he said. "This will strengthen the hand of a government that wants to regulate private ownership of firearms."

__________________
“He who stands for nothing will fall for anything.”
― Alexander Hamilton

The comments made herein are those solely of this writer and in no way reflect the opinions of any other person, agency, or entity.
Sonic82 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 12-31-2011, 04:33 PM   #2
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SW OK
Posts: 4,357
Liked 2107 Times on 1139 Posts
Likes Given: 3172

Default

The arms treaty is a red herring issue. No international treaty trumps the US Constitution: The SCOTUS has ruled so in Reid vs Covert.

Quote:
Reid v. Covert

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

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; . . .

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [n31] 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. [n32] 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.
__________________
alsaqr is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2011, 05:07 PM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Sonic82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Minneapolis,Minnesota
Posts: 2,901
Liked 749 Times on 477 Posts
Likes Given: 586

Default

....wonder why the guy went through the trouble

__________________
“He who stands for nothing will fall for anything.”
― Alexander Hamilton

The comments made herein are those solely of this writer and in no way reflect the opinions of any other person, agency, or entity.
Sonic82 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2011, 05:27 PM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: West, by God, Funroe,Louisiana
Posts: 18,707
Liked 9203 Times on 5058 Posts
Likes Given: 74

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic82 View Post
....wonder why the guy went through the trouble
Job security.
__________________
trip286 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2011, 08:34 PM   #5
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alsaqr View Post
The arms treaty is a red herring issue. No international treaty trumps the US Constitution: The SCOTUS has ruled so in Reid vs Covert.
Exactly right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic82 View Post
....wonder why the guy went through the trouble
To make points with constituents? That, or he doesn't understand that treaties can't amend the constitution.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 02:05 AM   #6
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
RJMercer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 512
Liked 398 Times on 206 Posts
Likes Given: 595

Default

Or maybe Joe Walsh sees the threat to our national soveriegnty that is the U.N. and realizes the eventuality that it will pull us into a treaty (or set precedent in the world court that it is overlord of the planet) that would nullify our sovereignty. Thus necessitating a law that would withdraw us from the organization when it worked to that ultimate goal. While the letter of the constitution states that our sovereignty cant be challenged by treaty, I haven't seen our founding document paid much mind here in recent years.
When SCOTUS can interpret "shall not be infringed" to mean "with certain reasonable limitations".......... the integrity of the document and rule of law is compromised.

__________________
RJMercer is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 03:40 AM   #7
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BigByrd47119's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,401
Liked 1102 Times on 677 Posts
Likes Given: 2389

Default

If you ask me I say he did the right thing. If one more member of the SCOTUS bites the dust we could all be looking at international treaty's trumping the Constitution. Don't be surprised. There would have been a time when the people of this nation would have scoffed and said that the NDAA would never make it through our congress because it was unconstitutional. The problem lies in the fact that the SCOTUS has the ability to interpret and therefore can decide when the Constitution trumps something AND when it doesn't.

Good for this guy, he gets a +1 for standing up for the Constitution, even if the scenario I put forward here never comes to fruition.

__________________

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
---Ron Paul

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it."
---Dr. Martin Luther King

"If you think we are free today, you know nothing about tyranny and even less about freedom."
---Tom Braun

BigByrd47119 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 04:40 AM   #8
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SW OK
Posts: 4,357
Liked 2107 Times on 1139 Posts
Likes Given: 3172

Default

Riddle me this: With all those "conservatives" on the SCOTUS why is Roe v Wade still the law of the land? Google up stare decisis.

__________________
alsaqr is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 05:23 AM   #9
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BigByrd47119's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,401
Liked 1102 Times on 677 Posts
Likes Given: 2389

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alsaqr View Post
Riddle me this: With all those "conservatives" on the SCOTUS why is Roe v Wade still the law of the land? Google up stare decisis.
I'm not exactly sure what it is you want me to look at specifically with stare decisis, but I found this notion intriguing. No, I'm not trying to protect the ruling in Roe v. Wade, only offering a possible explanation for why it hasn't been revered by a more recent and conservative SCOTUS.

Quote:
During 1976, Richard Posner and William Landes invented the term "super-precedent," in an article they wrote about testing theories of precedent by counting citations. Posner and Landes used this term to describe the influential effect of a decision cited.

While Posner and Landes' idea did not become popular, the term "super-precedent" has subsequently become synonymous with a different idea: the difficulty of overturning a decision. During 1992, Rutgers professor Earl Maltz criticized the Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey for endorsing the idea that if one side can control the Court on an issue of major national importance (as in Roe v. Wade), then that side can protect its position from being reversed "by a kind of super-stare decisis." The controversial idea that some decisions are virtually immune from being overturned, regardless of whether they were decided correctly in the first place, is the idea to which the term "super stare decisis" now usually refers.

The concept of super-stare decisis (or “super-precedent”) was mentioned during the interrogations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Prior to the commencement of the Roberts hearings, the chair of that committee, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, wrote an op/ed in the New York Times referring to Roe as a "super-precedent." He revisited this concept during the hearings, but neither Roberts nor Alito endorsed the term or the concept.

Lastly, super-stare decisis may be considered as one extreme of a range of precedential power.
Wikipedia, emphasis added by myself.

**EDIT**

Ohhhh I see what your saying. Sorry, I'm a little slow some times. It makes sense then, what your saying. I only suspect that because Roe v. Wade was a power grab of sorts that that is the reason we haven't seen it overturned. However, I could still see them changing the whole "The Constitution rules over treaties" just because doing so means more power for the U.N. and federal government.
__________________

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
---Ron Paul

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it."
---Dr. Martin Luther King

"If you think we are free today, you know nothing about tyranny and even less about freedom."
---Tom Braun


Last edited by BigByrd47119; 01-01-2012 at 05:27 AM.
BigByrd47119 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2012, 05:26 PM   #10
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Cory2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Maryville,Tennessee
Posts: 575
Liked 9 Times on 5 Posts
Likes Given: 3

Default

I still think its funny that people on here still believe that the government gives 2 ****s and a gigle what the constitution says.


I guess we will all pretend the patriot did not happen too right?

__________________
God created men. John Moses Browning made them equal.

Check out my blog:http://ithinkforme.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Cory2; 01-02-2012 at 05:28 PM.
Cory2 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
UN Small Arms Treaty again fireguy Legal and Activism 37 10-28-2011 01:18 PM
NRA to attend Arms Trade Treaty Meeting Bigcountry02 Legal and Activism 3 06-20-2011 03:01 AM
UN Small Arms Treaty fireguy Legal and Activism 15 06-08-2011 05:03 PM
The Biennial Meeting Of States, And The Arms Trade Treaty Bigcountry02 Legal and Activism 0 06-15-2010 04:40 PM
US senate to ratify a small arms trafficking treaty PoofNoEyebrows Politics, Religion and Controversy 11 04-18-2009 04:43 AM