The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: tt11758 on July 05, 2012, 01:12:45 PM
-
-
I have not had a chance to verify the facts in this video, but I have a couple questions:
1. Can our President enter us into a treaty that goes against our Constitution?
2. If the Senate ratifies this and it, as the video claims, becomes "like a 27th Amendment" changing the Second Amendment, can this be done strictly as a Senate ratification or does it need votes by us as citizens in each state?
3. If we are truly faced with this and we see our Second Amendment going away, is that the call to arms as we were warned about by the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Second to help us protect this Republic from all enemies both foreign and domestic?
Mr. Bogan, Timmy, tw, I will wait for you great knowledge here.
-
Doc Wesson talked about it on his latest podcast.
http://www.gunnation.us/2012/07/7-3-2012show-no51-basic-3-gun-battery.html (http://www.gunnation.us/2012/07/7-3-2012show-no51-basic-3-gun-battery.html)
It's in the fitrst part of his 'cast.
I have to review it again, but I believe he said that the way it's being done, it would only need ratification by the Senate and not the house for it to go through. IF it did, then an amendmenmt to the constitution would be needed to repeal it. :(
-
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a super majority of the United States Senate.
My comment....Does the Senate have a super majority that can ratify the agreement? I don't think so at this point. That won't stop the asshat in chief from signing it though!
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
-
I understand that this will happen through representation (two boys and girls for each of our states), and it is how a Republic works (looking out for our best interest as opposed to democratic vote on every issue). However, at what point are they rewriting our Constitution without our consent ... Oh ... They are doing it right now as we type >:(
-
Timothy,
Does this say that he needs to have the super majority approval before he signs and commits, or can he try and get it afterward? It would put a whole new spin on the election if he took this to the Senate this month.
-
Treaties have to be ratified first. The Communist in chief can't do it with an executive order and have it stand up.
-
Timothy,
Does this say that he needs to have the super majority approval before he signs and commits, or can he try and get it afterward? It would put a whole new spin on the election if he took this to the Senate this month.
It says "by and with the advice of the Senate". As Tom stated, and I believe as well, that he cannot enter into a treaty by his signature authority alone.
Again, that doesn't mean he won't try! Also, the clause states that "provided two thirds of the Senators present"!
He, being the consummate bender of Constitutional interpretation, could construe that to mean that he could conceivably force a vote during a short session that's tilted in his favor mathematically!
-
That should be expected.
-
Counting on the "low-information" voter, BHO may very well sign it, however there is no official treaty, just a press kit ratification by the Senate during an election year is unlikely.
Note: there isn’t a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. Not even a draft. Also, the President will only sign a gun grabbing U.N. Small Arms Treaty if he’s lost all the political instincts that carried him to the presidency in the first place. Nothing short of an Executive Order reinstating the assault weapons ban would do more to rally retaliatory Republicans than a U.N. document that even slightly abridges Americans’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. While some pundits point to the U.N. treaty as the “under the radar” gun control comment that Mr. Obama didn’t make, this would light up the right wing radar like a squadron of Russian nuclear bombers. Ain’t gonna happen. And even if it did, the Senate would shoot it down with extreme prejudice.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/07/robert-farago/obama-will-sign-u-n-gun-control-treaty-on-july-27-if-hes-stupid/
All this just goes to show that the U.N. regards gun ownership—even under national constitutional protection and for lawful activities—as a cultural failure that it needs to redress and that it has no patience at all with the idea that self-defense is an inherent right.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/22/the-u-n-speaks-the-arms-trade-treaty-will-affect-legally-owned-weapons/
Here's the UN press release Jul 2.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2012/dc3362.doc.htm
UNODA (United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs.) website.
http://www.un.org/disarmament/
-
My most recent correspondence...
Dear Senator Brown,
More sad news coming from our nations capital concerning the ongoing UN negotiations for this arms treaty. I know the rumor mill is running rampant but if any of the information I'm reading is true, I would not be a happy camper to find that you supported a treaty with the UN Council that in any way infringes on my Constitutional rights and the 2nd Amendment.
It's bad enough I had to register every firearm I own here in the Commonwealth, subject myself to a background check every time I purchase a firearm and get logged into the database at the BATF. To suggest that it's anyone’s business what I do with a firearm that I legally own, carry and hunt with is rather disturbing.
The laws in this country have set a precedent in the courts to determine that keeping lists of gun owners in this country is unacceptable. The reasons for this are obvious if you know anything of the Revolutionary War history and the British attempts to confiscate the firearms of the colonists. We are a free people with unalienable rights granted us by the Creator and reaffirmed in the Constitution!
The Constitution requires that this treaty, if signed, needs ratification as follows;
Section. 2. Para 2...
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
This power should not be taken lightly by you or your colleagues and the American people and the people of the Commonwealth deserve to know what your thoughts are on this issue.
Since the Senate has done nothing in nearly three years, I seriously doubt that anything resembling a ratification of this treaty is remotely possible but, the President has shown repeatedly that he is more than willing to sidestep the House and the Senate to further his agendas. I see nothing recently to change my opinion!
The Republic is reeling, we need leaders not followers! Which are you? Please vote against this treaty if it comes to the Senate floor! It only serves to further this countries descent into totalitarian control by a central government!
Respectfully,
Timothy
Leominster, MA
-
Excellent letter, Timothy. Do you mind if I copy it and send it to my 2 clowns, er, I mean senators? I would change the name at the end, of course.
-
Excellent letter, Timothy. Do you mind if I copy it and send it to my 2 clowns, er, I mean senators? I would change the name at the end, of course.
You may do as you wish with any of my rants! I don't think MN is a Commonwealth though! ;)
I have relatives all over that part of the country...
-
You may do as you wish with any of my rants! I don't think MN is a Commonwealth though! ;)
I have relatives all over that part of the country...
Yeah, I was going to change "commonwealth" as well as "descent" and some of the registration stuff as it applies to our laws. Not that Senator Dumbass will know the difference . . .
I still can't believe all of the braindead morons elected this bumbling clown.
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g236/lhprop1/stuart-smalley.jpg)
-
I still can't believe all of the braindead morons elected this bumbling clown.
He with the most deceased voters wins!
-
Added for Senator Kerry..
You will never get my vote but you may gain a modicum of my respect by voting along the lines of the majority of the citizens of this great land! Do the right thing!
-
Scott Browns reply......I probably won't hear from Kerry and if I do, it will be a canned response as always!
"Dear Timothy,
Thank you for your correspondence regarding a potential United Nations (UN) Small Arms Treaty and its impact on Second Amendment rights in the United States. As always, I value your input on this and other issues, and strive to keep you updated on the important issues facing us today.
Currently, Congress has not been presented with an opportunity to consider a United Nations Small Arms Treaty. Current discussions center upon the need to address illicit international trade of small arms through increased regulations and international standards that govern the import and export of conventional weapons. Doing so would close the gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that fail to prevent weapons from entering the black market. Consequently, a Small Arms Treaty would potentially affect laws regarding the sale and ownership of small arms in the United States.
Our Constitution represents the supreme law in the United States and I took an oath to defend it when I was sworn in as your U.S. Senator. As you know, the Supreme Court recently affirmed our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I also believe that the Constitution guarantees this right. I support safe and responsible gun ownership.
I understand your concerns about legislation that could place restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. As a Massachusetts State Senator, I voted in favor of legislation that extended the length of a gun license from four years to six years, expanded eligibility for licenses, and granted a 90-day grace period for expired firearms identification cards. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to examine any legislation that could impact our right to keep and bear arms.
Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. As the legislative process moves forward, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind. If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me or visit my website at www.scottbrown.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Scott P. Brown
United States Senator"
-
This is BS.
In order for BO to sign the treaty they have to actually draft one.
That hasn't happened in 20 years regardless of how much money Soros spreads around.
That is why he fired Rebbecca Peters, she could not deliver after her promising start in Australia.
-
This is BS.
In order for BO to sign the treaty they have to actually draft one.
That hasn't happened in 20 years regardless of how much money Soros spreads around.
That is why he fired Rebbecca Peters, she could not deliver after her promising start in Australia.
I'm not sure where I read it but Tom is right. W told the UN "Piss off. We won't be part of the group to draft the treaty as it contradicts our Constitution." a few years ago when this started in earnest. Of course BHO is all about gun control so he said the US would participate in the DRAFTING of the treaty as long as a single disention could veto it before it leaves the UN. That gives him an out, but leaves it on the table.
-
But it gives me a reason to pontificate to my senators! ;D
That's never a bad thing...I'd involve my congress douche as well be he's quitting in November so what's the point!
-
But it gives me a reason to pontificate to my senators! ;D
That's never a bad thing...I'd involve my congress douche as well be he's quitting in November so what's the point!
Barney is getting married now that same sex marriage is legal in Ma.
I hope he loses half his stuff in the divorce.
-
Barney is getting married now that same sex marriage is legal in Ma.
I hope he loses half his stuff in the divorce.
He's 4th district, I'm in the 1st and John Olver is retiring for much the same reasons as Bawny..they split the 1st into what will be the 1st, 2nd and some of the 3rd. Next year I'll be in the 2nd if I stay where I am.
BTW, Bawny got married last week...
-
But it gives me a reason to pontificate to my senators! ;D
That's never a bad thing...I'd involve my congress douche as well be he's quitting in November so what's the point!
Ulcers? blood pressure? has he done a good enough job that you want him going out healthy and happy, without the headaches of Timmy at the last minute? if not, give 'im hell! ;D
deepwater
-
Ulcers? blood pressure? has he done a good enough job that you want him going out healthy and happy, without the headaches of Timmy at the last minute? if not, give 'im hell! ;D
deepwater
You make a wonderful argument DW! :D
-
You make a wonderful argument DW! :D
yup, and that's after a couple snorts of the good liquor. ;)
I am doing the same to my chief engineer, he's a little fella, with a Napoleon complex. ship is being reflagged soon so I'm poking at him (more than usual) and getting him foamin' mad. I love it. ;D
deep
-
yup, and that's after a couple snorts of the good liquor. ;)
I am doing the same to my chief engineer, he's a little fella, with a Napoleon complex. ship is being reflagged soon so I'm poking at him (more than usual) and getting him foamin' mad. I love it. ;D
deep
You, sir, are an instigating bastard!! Is it possible we're long lost brothers? ;D ;D ;D ;D