The Arms Trade Treaty- Rep from Illinois steps up

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Sonic82, Dec 31, 2011.

  1. Sonic82

    Sonic82 New Member

    2,924
    0
    0
    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."
     
  2. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,129
    118
    63
    The arms treaty is a red herring issue. No international treaty trumps the US Constitution: The SCOTUS has ruled so in Reid vs Covert.

     

  3. Sonic82

    Sonic82 New Member

    2,924
    0
    0
    ....wonder why the guy went through the trouble :confused:
     
  4. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    Job security.
     
  5. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Exactly right.

    To make points with constituents? That, or he doesn't understand that treaties can't amend the constitution.
     
  6. RJMercer

    RJMercer New Member

    519
    0
    0
    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.
     
  7. BigByrd47119

    BigByrd47119 New Member

    3,426
    0
    0
    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.
     
  8. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,129
    118
    63
    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.
     
  9. BigByrd47119

    BigByrd47119 New Member

    3,426
    0
    0
    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.

    Wikipedia, emphasis added by myself.

    **EDIT**

    Ohhhh I see what your saying. Sorry, I'm a little slow some times:eek:. 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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2012
  10. Cory2

    Cory2 New Member

    575
    0
    0
    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?
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2012
  11. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Whether people here or anywhere believe whether the government cares about what the constitution says is moot: very clearly, the government doesn't care. But what is interesting is that the more the government abuses its position and usurps power, the more people wake up.

    On an entirely unrelated note, did you all hear that December broke the record for gun sales nationally? The previous record was set in...November.

    Funny coincidence, innit?