PDA

View Full Version : Treaties and The Constitution


Dirtbozz
04-26-2009, 8:01 PM
I read something in another thread on this forum that stated it was a "myth" that a treaty signed by our president could take our gun rights away.

The United States Constitution states the following:

Article VI, paragraph 2;

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made 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 Constitution notwithstanding.”

I’m no lawyer, but this seems to say that if Obama signs the UN gun ban treaty and the Senate ratifies it, our guns are gone. :mad:

Please tell me that I am wrong. Educate me.

cortayack
04-26-2009, 8:20 PM
All civil magistrates are bound by oath to abide by the U.S. Constitution, and nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is any authority given for these United States to be subject to and bound by any earthly piece of paper that abrogates or is alien to the Constitution of the United States. As a matter of fact, Article VI, paragraph 2, the latter half of which is quoted at the outset above, in its first half, says only three pronouncements are "the supreme Law of the Land":

(1) "THIS [the U.S.] Constitution," (2) "the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" (i.e., as permitted by, in conformity with, and to implement this Constitution), and (3) "all treaties made....under the Authority of the United States" ("under" designates that treaties are not over, not above, and not even equal to the authority of the United States granted to it by the States via the U.S. Constitution - but remain under, inferior to its jurisdiction).

A treaty may not do or exceed what the Congress is charged to do or what it is forbidden to do. Constitutional authority supersedes, overrules, and precludes any contrary treaty authority.

Thus, if a proposed treaty would violate any provision of the Constitution, it may not even be seriously considered or debated, much less be ratified and implemented because the same restrictions that were placed by the Constitution on the U.S. Federal government are also imposed on any treaty provision.

Also: Article I, Section 10, paragraph 1 declares: "No State shall enter into any Treaty..."

I hope this helps.

nobody_special
04-26-2009, 8:26 PM
The US Supreme Court says you're wrong.
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.

-- Supreme Court majority opinion, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 17 (1956)

Dirtbozz
04-26-2009, 8:40 PM
Sometimes it feels good to be wrong. :thumbsup:

Thanks

RomanDad
04-26-2009, 8:40 PM
No treaty can abrogate the U.S. Constitution.


Further, treaties are not entered into UNILATERALLY by the executive. They must be ratified by 2/3rds vote of the Senate. IT IS MUCH EASIER TO PASS A LAW than to ratify a treaty.

Dirtbozz
04-26-2009, 8:46 PM
No treaty can abrogate the U.S. Constitution.


Further, treaties are not entered into UNILATERALLY by the executive. They must be ratified by 2/3rds vote of the Senate. IT IS MUCH EASIER TO PASS A LAW than to ratify a treaty.

I didn't realize that a 2/3 majority would be required for ratification. I guess I can relax on this one.

Thanks for the clarification. :)

RomanDad
04-26-2009, 8:49 PM
I didn't realize that a 2/3 majority would be required for ratification. I guess I can relax on this one.

Thanks for the clarification. :)

:thumbsup:

cortayack
04-26-2009, 9:12 PM
treaties ("made, or which shall be made") that violate the U.S. Constitution by subjugating the United States to an outside power ARE PROHIBITED, of no effect, and thus, null and void. For a Senator to violate his sworn oath is perjury, a felony, an impeachable offense. Since treaties are compacts between/among " the powers of the earth" of "separate and equal station" as stipulated in the Declaration of Independence, treaties may not be consummated with other than sovereign nations.

Consequently, because the U.S. Senate in 1945 ratified the United Nations (UN) Charter as a treaty and the UN is not a sovereign nation, and because membership in the UN makes the U.S. inferior to the UN. U.S. "membership" in the United Nations is unconstitutional, FORBIDDEN, and thus declared null and void. Ditto for the World Court and the nebulous entanglements of the New World Order/globalism, etc!

Thomas Jefferson: "If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton: "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States."