Obama just signed the UN Gun Ban treaty!

[The Annoyed Man]

If you would like a rational explanation of its evil from the conservative viewpoint: http://patriotpost.us/articles/20404

But, in what could be an end run around our Constitution, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), fully aware that he can't possibly win the necessary two-thirds majority of votes in the Senate for ratification, may not allow any vote at all. Thus, Obama could sign the treaty and ignore the constitutional mandate, as he habitually does when Rule of Law interferes with his political agenda.

Then what?

[Right2Carry]

If I am not mistaken the Supreme Court has ruled several times that treaties cannot undermine the rights granted by the US Constitution. I don't have time to research it at the moment. No treaty can ever supersede the US Constitution.

[mewalke]

If I am not mistaken the Supreme Court has ruled several times that treaties cannot undermine the rights granted by the US Constitution. I don't have time to research it at the moment. No treaty can ever supersede the US Constitution.

Generally you are correct.

Treaties as Law of the Land

“In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract—when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract, before it can become a rule for the Court.”

TL/DR: The Executive Branch can sign, the Legislature has to approve, and the SCOTUS interprets.

That doesn't mean they can't use it as a tool to further their agenda in the future.

[Right2Carry]

In the landmark case Reid v Covert, the Court ruled”…no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.”

[mewalke]

In the landmark case Reid v Covert, the Court ruled”…no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.”

The problem is that, even though Heller & McDonald recognized the RKBA as an individual right, there are still questions around the specifics of the RKBA that the courts have not issued opinions on.

There are also areas of legislation around the Bill of Rights. For example, legislation restricting the .gov from establishing a gun registry. Although foreign treaties don't override the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, it could potentially be used to weaken the laws that protect us from things like gun registries.

Still unlikely it will be ratified in the next 4 years though.

[mewalke]

And if there are any constitutional lawyers on the board, maybe they can help me understand this:

When Is a Treaty Self-Executing.—Several references have been made above to a distinction between treaties as self-executing and as merely executory, in which case they are enforceable only after the enactment of “legislation to carry them into effect.”23 But what is it about a treaty that makes it the law of the land and which gives a private litigant the right to rely on it in a court of law? As early as 1801, the Supreme Court took notice of a treaty, and finding it applicable to the situation before it, gave judgment for the petitioner based on it.315 In Foster v. Neilson,316 Chief Justice Marshall explained that a treaty is to be regarded in courts “as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision.” A treaty will not be self-executing, however, “when the terms of the [treaty] stipulation import a contract — when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act…” When this is the case, “the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the con tract, before it can become a rule for the court.”24

Sometimes the nature of a treaty will determine whether it requires legislative execution or “conveys an intention that it be ‘self-executing’ and is ratified on these terms.”25 One authority states that whether a treaty is self-executing “depends upon whether the obligation is imposed on private individuals or on public authorities…”

If the UN Gun Ban treaty doesn't impose any contract or obligation on individuals, only on the US government, could it be relied on without ratification of Congress?

[TxD]

Still unlikely it will be ratified in the next 4 years though.

An interesting point of view on non ratified treaties.

"It’s commonly said that the Senate has to provide its advice and consent to any treaty – commonly known as ratifying it – before it can take effect. That’s true, but there’s a loophole. Once the U.S. signs a treaty, we hold ourselves bound not to violate the treaty’s “object and purpose.”

In other words, we obey in practice treaties that the Senate has never ratified."

"This rule is an old one, and it used to make some sense. It would be dishonorable to sign a treaty with another country, do all the things prohibited by the treaty, and then ratify it."

"As a result, the old requirement not to violate the “object and purpose” of a signed treaty has become a way to evade the need for Senate ratification. And in the case of the Arms Trade Treaty, the problem is even worse. The administration will argue that it already has all the powers it needs to enforce the treaty."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/ ... s-to-come/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Right2Carry]

Still unlikely it will be ratified in the next 4 years though.

An interesting point of view on non ratified treaties.

"It’s commonly said that the Senate has to provide its advice and consent to any treaty – commonly known as ratifying it – before it can take effect. That’s true, but there’s a loophole. Once the U.S. signs a treaty, we hold ourselves bound not to violate the treaty’s “object and purpose.”

In other words, we obey in practice treaties that the Senate has never ratified."

"This rule is an old one, and it used to make some sense. It would be dishonorable to sign a treaty with another country, do all the things prohibited by the treaty, and then ratify it."

"As a result, the old requirement not to violate the “object and purpose” of a signed treaty has become a way to evade the need for Senate ratification. And in the case of the Arms Trade Treaty, the problem is even worse. The administration will argue that it already has all the powers it needs to enforce the treaty."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/ ... s-to-come/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The administration can argue all it wants to, the bottom line for me is the Constitution is the law of the land and no foreign entity can take that away from us. There is a sleeping Giant in this country that some folks with an agenda better hope they don't awaken.

[mewalke]

The administration can argue all it wants to, the bottom line for me is the Constitution is the law of the land and no foreign entity can take that away from us. There is a sleeping Giant in this country that some folks with an agenda better hope they don't awaken.

They don't have to take the Constitution away to undermine or weaken it.

[MeMelYup]

If I am not mistaken the Supreme Court has ruled several times that treaties cannot undermine the rights granted by the US Constitution. I don't have time to research it at the moment. No treaty can ever supersede the US Constitution.

It will depend on who is on the Supreme Court.

[anygunanywhere]

The GOP will save.......wait!

The Supreme Court will save....wait!

UUmmmm....

I got nothing.

Except.....

Anygunanywhere

[cb1000rider]

The Annoyed Man,
Thanks for the rational explanation!

[cb1000rider]

If I am not mistaken the Supreme Court has ruled several times that treaties cannot undermine the rights granted by the US Constitution.

They've ruled the same thing when state law conflicts with federal law.. Or when state law runs afoul of the Constitution. However, try "bearing arms" in your local suburban neighborhood and see what happens..

I'm not a crazy gun-nut, I promise.

[Right2Carry]

If I am not mistaken the Supreme Court has ruled several times that treaties cannot undermine the rights granted by the US Constitution.

They've ruled the same thing when state law conflicts with federal law.. Or when state law runs afoul of the Constitution. However, try "bearing arms" in your local suburban neighborhood and see what happens..

I'm not a crazy gun-nut, I promise.

I bear arms everyday in my local suburban neighborhood and nothing has happened yet.

[mamabearCali]

I bear arms all over my county... Suburbs, country.....so far no problems.