PDA

View Full Version : Interesting News Article


Old Deputy
11-12-2009, 4:57 PM
Is it true, or just predicting gloom and doom. It's worth following to see.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977898391&grpId=3659174697244816&nav=Groupspace

CHS
11-12-2009, 5:41 PM
It's a bunch of BS.

No international treaty can override the Constitution. It's in the Constitution. The article is just plain wrong.

G17GUY
11-12-2009, 6:04 PM
It's a bunch of BS.

No international treaty can override the Constitution. It's in the Constitution. The article is just plain wrong.

Keep saying that and watch it happen.

snobord99
11-12-2009, 6:07 PM
What bds said. Priority of our laws:

1. Federal Constitution
2. Federal statutes/treaties (most recent one prevails)
3. Executive orders
4. State laws

6172crew
11-12-2009, 6:14 PM
What bds said. Priority of our laws:

1. Federal Constitution
2. Federal statutes/treaties (most recent one prevails)
3. Executive orders
4. State laws

Since when have those old-living documents stop a law maker from taking something away from you?

a1c
11-12-2009, 6:35 PM
When a country ratifies a treaty - which, in the US, would require not just the president's signature but also a Senate approval (with the exception of executive agreements, but that's not what we're talking about here) - it also require the agreement to be consistent with the law of the land. In other words, in the US, ratifying a treaty that's not consistent with the Constitution would require a constitutional amendment - unless SCOTUS reverses Heller and decides that the National Guard was the militia defined in the 2A.

hoffmang
11-12-2009, 7:35 PM
Not even the Senates treaty ratification power can overrule the constitution. The international gun ban effort is something to work to stop, but it can't stop the 2A.

-Gene

B Strong
11-13-2009, 4:50 AM
More FUD.

No international treaty can supersede the BOR.

CharlieK
11-13-2009, 4:53 AM
No international treaty can supersede the BOR.

You may be technically correct but given that 99.9% of DC politicians have ignored the 10th ammendment for nearly 100 years, I wouldn't put anything past them.

nicki
11-13-2009, 12:15 PM
The Senate needs 2/3rd vte to ratify any treaty.

Let's not find out if they can ban guns by a treaty, let's let the Senate know that a vote on a UN treaty that restricts our 2A rights will be considered a direct attack on the US Constitution and the whole bill of rights by us.

Any Senator who would vote openly to destroy the bill of rights by a treaty IMHO is in violation of their oath of office and is unfit to serve in any government position.

Nicki

EastBayRidge
11-13-2009, 12:31 PM
"Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."...

This. The problem would be that, if ratified, courts will be forced to interpret the treaty and the 2nd Amendment on an equal plane.

OlderThanDirt
11-13-2009, 1:25 PM
"Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."...

This. The problem would be that, if ratified, courts will be forced to interpret the treaty and the 2nd Amendment on an equal plane.

This is actually pretty funny when you consider how faithful the US government has been in observing treaties that they sign. Just ask an indian how those treaties worked out for their tribe.

Decoligny
11-13-2009, 1:51 PM
"Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."...

This. The problem would be that, if ratified, courts will be forced to interpret the treaty and the 2nd Amendment on an equal plane.

You bolded the wrong part. Anything in the Constitution...not withstanding. That means that if the treaty goes against the Constitution, then the Constitution wins, not the treaty.

Cnynrat
11-13-2009, 1:51 PM
"Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."...

This. The problem would be that, if ratified, courts will be forced to interpret the treaty and the 2nd Amendment on an equal plane.

In the early '50's there was an unsuccessful attempt to amend the Consitution to explicitly state that no treaty could supercede the Constitution (see Bricker ammendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricker_Amendment)).

However, in 1957 the SCOTUS ruled in Reid v. Covert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert) that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights supercedes any treaties ratified by the Senate.

EastBayRidge
11-13-2009, 1:54 PM
This is actually pretty funny when you consider how faithful the US government has been in observing treaties that they sign. Just ask an indian how those treaties worked out for their tribe.

Fair enough, but the question here is, what will be the effect of such a treaty internally within the US, not externally on another nation.

EastBayRidge
11-13-2009, 1:59 PM
You bolded the wrong part. Anything in the Constitution...not withstanding. That means that if the treaty goes against the Constitution, then the Constitution wins, not the treaty.

The portion you quote refers to the Constitution or laws of the individual states.

EastBayRidge
11-13-2009, 2:14 PM
In the early '50's there was an unsuccessful attempt to amend the Consitution to explicitly state that no treaty could supercede the Constitution (see Bricker ammendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricker_Amendment)).

However, in 1957 the SCOTUS ruled in Reid v. Covert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert) that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights supercedes any treaties ratified by the Senate.

True, but the point remains that its still quite possible for a court to interpret any small arms treaty (i) in a way that pays lip service to Reid, (ii) is allegedly consistent with Heller as protecting an individual right, yet (iii) still guts it in practical effect. Don't give them the treaty to begin with, and life will be a lot simpler.

stag1500
11-13-2009, 3:04 PM
Not even the Senates treaty ratification power can overrule the constitution. The international gun ban effort is something to work to stop, but it can't stop the 2A.

-Gene

Especially not now after Heller v. DC. :D

Quser.619
11-13-2009, 6:15 PM
But that would assume that the current bunch of law makers actually care about what is legal or not

kcbrown
11-14-2009, 11:17 PM
But that would assume that the current bunch of law makers actually care about what is legal or not

Nothing physically prevents the treaty from being signed and ratified by the Senate. But as with any law, if someone runs afoul of it they can challenge its constitutionality in court. And as with any law, if the case makes it all the way to the Supreme Court (which is quite likely if the law in question is the result of a treaty), the SC can strike the law, and therefore the treaty, down as unconstitutional. That would make the U.S. in violation of the treaty, but striking it down that way makes the treaty itself invalid anyway, so that would (hopefully) be irrelevant to the SC.

There almost certainly have been treaties in the past that have been struck down this way...

snobord99
11-15-2009, 12:25 AM
Nothing physically prevents the treaty from being signed and ratified by the Senate. But as with any law, if someone runs afoul of it they can challenge its constitutionality in court. And as with any law, if the case makes it all the way to the Supreme Court (which is quite likely if the law in question is the result of a treaty), the SC can strike the law, and therefore the treaty, down as unconstitutional. That would make the U.S. in violation of the treaty, but striking it down that way makes the treaty itself invalid anyway, so that would (hopefully) be irrelevant to the SC.

There almost certainly have been treaties in the past that have been struck down this way...

I disagree. I don't think such a law would make it up to the Supremes. It'll get struck down in the District Court, review will be denied by whatever circuit it's in, and the Supremes will deny Cert. If the treaty clearly contradicts the constitution, it's also clearly unconstitutional and we wouldn't need the Supremes to tell us that.

GuyW
11-15-2009, 11:23 AM
I don't think such a law would make it up to the Supremes. It'll get struck down in the District Court, review will be denied by whatever circuit it's in, and the Supremes will deny Cert. If the treaty clearly contradicts the constitution, it's also clearly unconstitutional and we wouldn't need the Supremes to tell us that.

How's that been working for ya on gun kontrol laws??

IIRC, the Supremes also weighed in on a Constitutional issue by citing an international law of some sort (?)

The ability of those people in black pajamas to twist, rationalize, and ignore facts and history gives me no reassurance.

(Black PJs reminds me that the US had external enemies in black pjs...)

.

snobord99
11-15-2009, 1:45 PM
How's that been working for ya on gun kontrol laws??

The constitutionality of gun control has been disputed for decades if not over a century. Whether the Constitution or a treaty takes precedence has not. Sorry, the analogy doesn't work. There's a difference between something that's constantly disputed and something that's pretty much never been disputed. There's a reason I italicized "clearly" in my original post.

IIRC, the Supremes also weighed in on a Constitutional issue by citing an international law of some sort (?)

It's probably fair to assume you didn't read the opinion, and no, it's not relevant that I didn't read it either. There's nothing wrong with citing an international law. Just because a court cites something doesn't mean they took that to be the controlling law. The court could cite their daughter's diary if they wanted to if all they're using it for is a different opinion/argument/point of view.

kcbrown
11-15-2009, 2:11 PM
I disagree. I don't think such a law would make it up to the Supremes. It'll get struck down in the District Court, review will be denied by whatever circuit it's in, and the Supremes will deny Cert. If the treaty clearly contradicts the constitution, it's also clearly unconstitutional and we wouldn't need the Supremes to tell us that.

That's true, but they might nonetheless punt it all the way up to the SC, and the SC might accept the case, in order to both ensure that the law in question is rendered invalid without question throughout the country and to ensure that it does minimal damage.

snobord99
11-15-2009, 9:07 PM
That's true, but they might nonetheless punt it all the way up to the SC, and the SC might accept the case, in order to both ensure that the law in question is rendered invalid without question throughout the country and to ensure that it does minimal damage.

Haha, ok. Yes, that's true ;).

GuyW
11-16-2009, 8:50 AM
The constitutionality of gun control has been disputed for decades if not over a century. Whether the Constitution or a treaty takes precedence has not. Sorry, the analogy doesn't work. There's a difference between something that's constantly disputed and something that's pretty much never been disputed. There's a reason I italicized "clearly" in my original post.


Many of the gun control laws are clearly unconstitutional on their face to anyone but eggheads looking to argue their pro-statist views, but Courts have not rushed to invalidate them, for decades. The analogy stands.


There's nothing wrong with citing an international law. Just because a court cites something doesn't mean they took that to be the controlling law.

Nothing, except the fact that its got nothing whatsoever to do with strict constructionism of the Constitution, or even an Anglo concept of well-ordered liberty (hah - might have this one mis-stated).


The court could cite their daughter's diary if they wanted to if all they're using it for is a different opinion/argument/point of view.

And they will if that's all they have to legitimize outlawing freedom.

.

snobord99
11-16-2009, 10:00 AM
Many of the gun control laws are clearly unconstitutional on their face to anyone but eggheads looking to argue their pro-statist views, but Courts have not rushed to invalidate them, for decades. The analogy stands.

I don't think you understand the concept of has been disputed versus has not been disputed. Again, whether you or I think it should or shouldn't be disputed is irrelevant. The point is has it been disputed? One, yes. The other, no. That's why the analogy fails.

Nothing, except the fact that its got nothing whatsoever to do with strict constructionism of the Constitution, or even an Anglo concept of well-ordered liberty (hah - might have this one mis-stated).

Except that theory only works (if at all) if you're a strict constructionist (not saying if I am or not...just pointing out the argument).

And they will if that's all they have to legitimize outlawing freedom.

That was supposed to be read in conjunction with the sentence that came right before it.

I don't get why you're fighting the fight. You obviously think we're going to lose anyways. Why not just move if it's so hopeless?

5ohguy
11-16-2009, 10:05 AM
We have a democratic majority in congress and the executive who many believe that the constitution is a living and ever changing document. I wouldn't be surprised if something like this were to happen. Look at all the amendments our government chooses not to follow right now.

We can't rely on the supreme court to follow the constitution either. Look at how close all the votes are, even on black and white constitutional issues.

One step closer to a world government.

IGOTDIRT4U
11-16-2009, 1:55 PM
The Senate needs 2/3rd vte to ratify any treaty.

Let's not find out if they can ban guns by a treaty, let's let the Senate know that a vote on a UN treaty that restricts our 2A rights will be considered a direct attack on the US Constitution and the whole bill of rights by us.

Any Senator who would vote openly to destroy the bill of rights by a treaty IMHO is in violation of their oath of office and is unfit to serve in any government position.

Nicki

Well said, Nicki.

GuyW
11-16-2009, 4:37 PM
I don't get why you're fighting the fight. You obviously think we're going to lose anyways. Why not just move if it's so hopeless?

I was just commenting on what I perceived to be over-reliance on the Supreme Court "doing what's right" (you have to - its a job requirement) ..... I just don't put TOO MUCH faith in the Supreme Court....neither did the Founders - hence the RKBA...
.

kcbrown
11-16-2009, 9:59 PM
I was just commenting on what I perceived to be over-reliance on the Supreme Court "doing what's right" (you have to - its a job requirement) ..... I just don't put TOO MUCH faith in the Supreme Court....neither did the Founders - hence the RKBA...
.

In this case, the reliance wouldn't necessarily be on the Supreme Court to "do the right thing" so much as it might be to protect their own power. It depends greatly upon the law being considered.