PDA

View Full Version : Obama planning Back Door Gun Control via Treaty using Lame Duck Senate


Billy Jack
05-09-2012, 8:05 AM
http://www.dickmorris.com/obamas-secret-gun-control-plan-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

Obama has a majority in the Senate and only they vote on treaties. Do not put anything past 'Mr. Bojangles'.


Billy Jack
Patriot

USMCM16A2
05-09-2012, 8:13 AM
Gene or Bill,



Is there any credibility to this or is he trying to sell his book? A2:cool::cool::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Cnynrat
05-09-2012, 8:14 AM
Doesn't it take a 2/3 vote of the Senate to ratify a treaty?

CalBear
05-09-2012, 8:17 AM
Doesn't it take a 2/3 vote of the Senate to ratify a treaty?
Yes. Frankly, the idea of this happening before the election is laughable. Look for more attention from Obama on gun control if he gets reelected. Not saying the treaty will ever pass, but he'll do more by executive fiat, at he very least. Gun control is not the most popular issue, and it can get politicians running for national office, particularly the presidency, in some trouble with voters. He will wait until he's reelected before going all out.

dbo31
05-09-2012, 8:19 AM
ahhh..this again..isn't it from 2008?

dustoff31
05-09-2012, 8:26 AM
Doesn't it take a 2/3 vote of the Senate to ratify a treaty?

Yes, it does. But there are other mechanisms available, particulary if you needn't worry about getting re-elected. Would it happen? Who knows. Why take the chance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

In the United States, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements.[1]

All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone, respectively. The Treaty Clause also has a somewhat different impact on domestic U.S. law, as compared to congressional-executive agreements and sole executive agreements.

The Supreme Court of the United States has considered congressional-executive and sole-executive agreements to be valid, and they have been common throughout American history. Thomas Jefferson explained that the Article II treaty procedure is not necessary when there is no long-term commitment:
It is desirable, in many instances, to exchange mutual advantages by Legislative Acts rather than by treaty: because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party: whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent....[3]

Between 1946 and 1999, the United States completed nearly 16,000 international agreements. Only 912 of those agreements were treaties, submitted to the Senate for approval as outlined in Article II of the United States Constitution. Since the Franklin Roosevelt presidency, only 6% of international accords have been completed as Article II treaties.[1] Most of these executive agreements consist of congressional-executive agreements.

ZirconJohn
05-09-2012, 8:30 AM
ahhh..this again..isn't it from 2008?

Uhhhmmmmm... no :no:

Billy Jack is from 1971... here's a clip... enjoy :D :laugh:

RqL0zZKUtbs&feature

Gray Peterson
05-09-2012, 8:31 AM
Reid v. Covert

Cnynrat
05-09-2012, 8:41 AM
Reid v. Covert

Excellent ...

dantodd
05-09-2012, 8:45 AM
I'll see your "treaty Clause" and raise the "Supremacy Clause."

dbo31
05-09-2012, 8:50 AM
Billy Jack[/B] is from 1971... here's a clip... enjoy :D :laugh:



I did enjoy..thank you for that.

Baconator
05-09-2012, 8:52 AM
If they want to see the hill people come out and take over the white house, they can go ahead and try. There are enough wackos out there to make the most radical cal gunner look like a Saint.

Billy Jack
05-09-2012, 8:55 AM
Looks like some of the boyz forgot how ObamaCare was passed. Obama has the votes and if he is not re-elected, it is likely his majority in the Senate will go away as well. Thus the term 'Lame Duck'. You can be assured he will trash the Cosntitution on his way out.

It is not about your guns boyz, it is all about control. Read former '60 Minutes' commentator Steve Kroft's recent article on Obama and his objectives, avaiable on the Internet. You will also benefit from a read of Mark Levin's Ameritopia.

Some posters are indeed, 'one trick ponies'. Be real careful out there.

Billy Jack
Patriot

dustoff31
05-09-2012, 9:04 AM
I'll see your "treaty Clause" and raise the "Supremacy Clause."

Perhaps, if one considers the possibility that a court might rule something unconstitutional, years after the fact and damage has been done a comforting thought.

I don't think he would do anything before the election, but if he should be reelected there is, I believe, cause for serious concern.

zhyla
05-09-2012, 9:06 AM
THIS IS COMPLETELY TRUE AND RATIONAL. WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE AT THE HANDS OF U.N. GOONS!!!!!!!!!

Cnynrat
05-09-2012, 9:15 AM
Looks like some of the boyz forgot how ObamaCare was passed. Obama has the votes and if he is not re-elected, it is likely his majority in the Senate will go away as well. Thus the term 'Lame Duck'. You can be assured he will trash the Cosntitution on his way out.

It is not about your guns boyz, it is all about control. Read former '60 Minutes' commentator Steve Kroft's recent article on Obama and his objectives, avaiable on the Internet. You will also benefit from a read of Mark Levin's Ameritopia.

Some posters are indeed, 'one trick ponies'. Be real careful out there.

Billy Jack
Patriot

But Obamacare only required 51 votes to pass, 60 for cloture. It's very clear that it requires 66 votes to ratify a treaty. There are not 66 votes for the U.N Small Arms treaty no matter how much arm twisting 0bama may do behind the scenes. It's also important to realize that if 0bama is a lame duck he has very little leverage to use to sway the vote of a Senator who will remain in office. The lame duck has little to offer.

So no, I don't see this happening. No way.

If by some remote chance it did pass it's very clear that treaties do not trump the Constitution.

Do we need to get 0bama out of office? Absolutely. But I think the biggest threat he poses to the 2A is any additional opportunities to appoint anti-2A justices to the court.

Scarecrow Repair
05-09-2012, 9:19 AM
1. No way Obama can get enough votes to pass the Senate.

2. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the Constitution trumps treaties.

3. If, by some bizarre anti-miracle, this thing were to be accepted by the Senate, the Dems would lose the next several elections, and I'd say there'd be a good chance of a Constitutional Convention or Amendment to rectify the situation. It would make the 1994 election loss look like a close call.

This has been hashed over time and again. What triggered it this time, Rush trying to get advertisers back?

Cnynrat
05-09-2012, 9:23 AM
What triggered it this time, Rush trying to get advertisers back?

Dick Morris trying to sell books.

bwiese
05-09-2012, 9:24 AM
But Obamacare only required 51 votes to pass, 60 for cloture. It's very clear that it requires 66 votes to ratify a treaty. There are not 66 votes for the U.N Small Arms treaty no matter how much arm twisting 0bama may do behind the scenes. It's also important to realize that if 0bama is a lame duck he has very little leverage to use to sway the vote of a Senator who will remain in office. The lame duck has little to offer.

So no, I don't see this happening. No way.

If by some remote chance it did pass it's very clear that treaties do not trump the Constitution.

Do we need to get 0bama out of office? Absolutely. But I think the biggest threat he poses to the 2A is any additional opportunities to appoint anti-2A justices to the court.


Yup.
And Obama doesn't have any money to spread around to make a Senator drool.

Far more worried about Supreme ct justices (and leadership of ATF to boot) than this kind of improbable end run that is already well-surveilled and part of a noted fundraising item by NRA.

Ripon83
05-09-2012, 9:35 AM
Its sad really. We all know Obama is as anti gun as it gets. Its pretty clear he treats Hand Gun Control Inc., like the Russians. What was that line, "I need some space now until after the election and then we can do what we want." I don't know what the exact line was, but its the same thing he tells homosexuals about gay marriage. I can't be for it right now, but probably in 2013 cause after the election I can do what I want. This man's, (Obama) dishonesty really no know bounds. Now the sad part is you get this ridiculous claims that he'll ban guns with a UN treaty. Please....stop the silliness and recognize the president for what he is - a true anti gun advocate who's appointing anti gun judges to the courts and in particular the supreme court. Judges that would have NO trouble interpreting the 2nd Amendment as applicable only to a state militia (national guard). We don't need to present "stupid" UN treaty threats to our gun rights when there are REAL threats that exist.

cvc04
05-09-2012, 9:52 AM
Speaking of treaties, Obama is also trying to get Law of the Sea treaty(LOST) passed.
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2011/07/law-of-sea-treaty-could-cost-us-trillions

dbo31
05-09-2012, 10:25 AM
Looks like some of the boyz forgot how ObamaCare was passed. Obama has the votes and if he is not re-elected, it is likely his majority in the Senate will go away as well. Thus the term 'Lame Duck'. You can be assured he will trash the Cosntitution on his way out.

It is not about your guns boyz, it is all about control. Read former '60 Minutes' commentator Steve Kroft's recent article on Obama and his objectives, avaiable on the Internet. You will also benefit from a read of Mark Levin's Ameritopia.

Some posters are indeed, 'one trick ponies'. Be real careful out there.

Billy Jack
Patriot

I'm still waiting for us all to be sent to goulags at the hands of the evil emperor..if I got excited over everything some nutjob trying to sell books was spewing I'd have had 7 strokes by now. Someone alert me when Obama invites the North koreans here or starts eating babies or whatever the next conspiracy he's planning is will ya?

MudCamper
05-09-2012, 10:34 AM
It's all true. Better get ready:
http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/tin-foil-hat.jpg

fonso
05-09-2012, 11:00 AM
But Obamacare only required 51 votes to pass, 60 for cloture. It's very clear that it requires 66 votes to ratify a treaty. There are not 66 votes for the U.N Small Arms treaty no matter how much arm twisting 0bama may do behind the scenes. It's also important to realize that if 0bama is a lame duck he has very little leverage to use to sway the vote of a Senator who will remain in office. The lame duck has little to offer.

So no, I don't see this happening. No way.

If by some remote chance it did pass it's very clear that treaties do not trump the Constitution. [Emphasis added.]

Do we need to get 0bama out of office? Absolutely. But I think the biggest threat he poses to the 2A is any additional opportunities to appoint anti-2A justices to the court.

This^^^^!

I point out the fact that under Article VI, Clause 2, of the Constitution treaties "shall be made in Pursuance" of the Constitution and the proposed treaty here at hand would NOT be "in Pursuance" of Article II of the Bill of Rights (the Second Amendment). It would therefore be in violation of the specifically enumerated terms of the Contract (the Constitution).

MindBuilder
05-09-2012, 12:38 PM
Dick Morris isn't saying that Obama is going to ban guns or handguns in a lame duck session after he has lost the election, he is saying that Obama is going to go for registration. It is doubtful that the courts will hold registration to be in violation of the 2nd Amendment, so there is nothing stopping the Senate from enacting registration requirements. As far as whether there are enough votes in a lame duck Senate for registration, I wouldn't be so sure there is not. Remember, there are even some Republican senators, like John McCain, who favor registration. Or if not full registration, the treaty may just require all transfers to go through a dealer, thus plugging the "gun show loophole". Even if there is no official "registration", running ALL transactions through dealers is effectively registration. Once they have registration, confiscation is much more tempting to a government. Such registration will set things up for where Obama wants to go. While I seriously doubt that they will try to ban guns entirely, the fact that they just passed the NDAA making it legal for the military to imprison you for life without a trial, and the public seems little concerned about that vastly worse law, leaves me thinking they might do anything. At any rate, mandating registration or ending private sales seems to me like a serious lame duck session threat. We really need to do something about legislatures and presidents enacting things after they've been voted out.

bwiese
05-09-2012, 12:45 PM
. It is doubtful that the courts will hold registration to be in violation of the 2nd Amendment, so there is nothing stopping the Senate from enacting registration requirements.


1. Um yes there is. The House.

2. The Heller II panel said, 3-0, that long gun registration was problematic.


Once they have registration, confiscation is much more tempting to a government.

Post-Heller, registration CANNOT lead to confiscation [barring the world turning upside down etc]. Why are you unclear on this?

Don'tBlink
05-09-2012, 12:59 PM
Dick Morris trying to sell books.

:iagree:

lilro
05-09-2012, 1:25 PM
Didn't the executive order Obomba just signed basically nullify the need for senate approval of international treaties under the guise of "regulation"?

MindBuilder
05-09-2012, 1:54 PM
Originally Posted by MindBuilder
It is doubtful that the courts will hold registration to be in violation of the 2nd Amendment, so there is nothing stopping the Senate from enacting registration requirements.

1. Um yes there is. The House.

Good point, but if the Democrats get control of Washington again, they could enact the legislation by simple majority while claiming they are obliged to follow through on their treaty obligations. It doesn't seem too likely that even a Democratic House would enact registration soon, but they might well ban private transfers. Does the house really need to pass anything anyway? Doesn't the treaty have force of law by itself? Maybe the treaty will just specify punishments and instruct the appropriate agency to create the regulations and no further law will be needed.


2. The Heller II panel said, 3-0, that long gun registration was problematic.

Did the Heller II panel flat out declare registration unconstitutional? Between judges that just hate the 2nd Amendment and judges who respect the 2nd but think it protects us from confiscation, I'm not very confident registration will be found in violation of the 2nd.


Post-Heller, registration CANNOT lead to confiscation [barring the world turning upside down etc]. Why are you unclear on this?

It only takes a change of one Supreme Court Justice to overrule Heller. And with the House, Senate, and President signing a law for life in prison without trial for American citizens, it is not clear that the world hasn't turned upside down already. Life in prison without trial is about the most fundamental violation of human rights imaginable. Anybody reading this: why do you not object to life in prison without trial? You just don't think it will happen to you? You don't think a president like Nixon would abuse such power? Do people just not believe such a law was passed? Do they think it's just a paranoid interpretation?

Uxi
05-09-2012, 1:54 PM
He'll definitely try to keep it "under the radar" but I have no doubt Barry wants to bring "common sense" regulation like we have in California :rolleyes: to the rest of the nation. This would be another tool to that end, that's all.