A Treaty Can Trump The Constitution? (Guns, Again…)

Bill of Rights“GUN” is more obscene now than honest, Anglo-Saxon F–K, right? If you were to strap a rifle to your back and go shopping, you’d expect to be arrested, as was a recent 21-year-old who did that, mistakenly having taken the 2nd Amendment seriously. On the other hand, you could drape yourself in condoms with perfect equanimity. But that’s not our story.

Our story is the current U.N. treaty circulating in an attempt to reduce international arms trafficking, or so it is billed. It is claimed to also intend to disarm citizens of signatories. And some are pointing out that once a treaty is approved, it becomes law in the U.S. per the Constitution; therefore, the story goes, by approving this treaty, the 2nd Amendment is finessed; guns can be declared illegal and seized by the government. U.N. Treaty will explain.

Is this correct? You can follow some constitutional lawyers arguing about it at the Volokh Conspiracy if you’re interested. Both sides have defenders. If it’s true, the Senate, by approving a treaty signed by the President, can ok something forbidden by the Constitution, right? And as the Volokh lawyers will tell you, there’s a case (Missouri vs. Holland) that is used to support that. From Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, no less. And the internet is full of warnings about President Obama using this ‘back door’ to circumvent our Constitutional rights.

Snopes is little help here; it’s a Lefty-run resource and merely says the U.N. treaty isn;t really about confiscating guns, so relax. You may see another view at Examiner.com.

Those are the public pronouncements; what are the facts? Damfino; the Supremes haven’t said yet…and may never, who knows? But here’s what seems reasonable to me and apparently, Justice Scalia at least. See what you think, if you’re interested. If you’re not, kindly don’t vote anymore…

The Federal government has delegated powers from the states and the people, per the Constitution, right? And if any powers aren’t delegated, they stay with the states or the people. That’ what the Constitution says. It also says that approved treaties are just as much binding law as any legislation. So, can a treaty empower Congress to legislate in areas not provided to it by the Constitution, is the question.

Power exists in the sovereign, we’re told. For us, that’s the people and the states, not Congress. So if we claim Congress can legislate per treaty, in areas not delegated to it by the constitution, we have to find another sovereign outside the people and the states to be the source of that authority. As there isn’t any such, there isn’t any empowerment of Congress to legislate against the Constitution, simple. Or so it seems to me. How it seems to Chief Justice Roberts who recently approved Obamacare, we”ll have to see.

But that’s the hassle going on in the background; the Major Media evidently don’t consider it news, as they so often seem to classify things that might rile the citizens. But here, we let it all hang out, though we’re not shy with our opinions. You needn’t agree with us though, if you can state your reasons with civility, you’re welcome to do that. We can always learn… Well, we do try…

About Jack Curtis

Suspicious of government, doubtful of economics, fond of figure skating (but the off-ice part, not so much)
This entry was posted in Congress, Constitution, Guns, Media Bias and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to A Treaty Can Trump The Constitution? (Guns, Again…)

  1. the unit says:

    I have listening to this arguement of Constitution vs treaty for about 20 years. I’m not sure any party or side really wants it decided one way or the other. Kind of like the filibuster…both sides like it when they get in power.
    Something I happened to notice during this time, early on, while pondering about this arguement is the following:

    Starting with the Preamble to the Constitution and continuing in all Articles concerning powers to the government, everything is subject to THIS Constitution. I counted twelve times, possibly missing more, but pretty sure about it. I know at least twelve.

    Only in the president’s oath is it referred to as “The Constitution”, and then by following up with “of the United States.”

    The only other place referencing “the Constitution” is in Article VI concerning treaties…and that only says ” the Constitution or laws of any state.” States have Constitutions and laws and that’s all it is saying. Otherwise, again, they would have said clearly “the Constitution of the United States or laws of any state.

    The side of the arguement I’m on is clearly defined as written in The Constitution of the United States.

    • Jack Curtis says:

      Your case seems irrefutable to me. When I’m in charge of the Supreme Court, you’ll win for sure… but I trust those folk to follow the election returns more than I trust them to follow the Constitution! We will see…or our descendants will.

      • the unit says:

        Of course I only a citizen, have no “standing.” Rather be understanding, or even limping along than “running” as a politician! Yes we will see, or descendants will and that’s what is likely. I like your court your Honor. And no lobbists required. 🙂

      • Jack Curtis says:

        Verily, and unfortunately, if lobbyists can’t be afforded, they will be provided…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s