1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Obama Admin: Treaties override the Constitution

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by Brian in Oregon, Nov 21, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,248
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    And now you know why the UN Gun Ban is being pushed again. The goal of the socialists, aided and abetted by their useful tools, is the complete destruction of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This is how they intend to do it.

    Supreme Court to rule on whether treaties break constitutional bonds<br>
    by Mike Stollewerk<br>
    November 4, 2012<br>

    http://www.examiner.com/article/supreme-court-to-rule-on-whether-treaties-break-constitutional-bonds

    Supreme Court to rule on whether treaties break constitutional bonds

    CONSTITUTIONAL LAWNOVEMBER 4, 2012BY: MIKE STOLLENWERK

    Many pundits and readers have taken exception with the previous article in this column entitled "Monday’s Presidential debate question: Will you sign a UN gun ban treaty?," which advanced the idea that under current legal precedent the federal government can, by way of an international small arms treaty, but without the consent of the states, grant itself power to criminalize the possession and transfer of garden variety small arms and ammunition now in common use; and, to do so beyond the specified constitutional powers of Congress and the President, as well as beyond the limits established by the Second and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

    It is unfortunate that Americans do not take the Treaty Power threat to federalism more seriously. Just ask Carol Anne Bond.

    Bond's case was recently granted certiorari on the merits by the US Supreme Court which had previously unanimously reversed the Third Circuit in this case on the precedural issue of whether citizens have standing to bring Tenth Amendment claims. As summarized over at The Volokh Conspiracy:

    “In 2010, the Supreme Court unanimously held that Carol Anne Bond had standing to challenge her conviction under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 for trying to poison her husband’s lover. On remand, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected her constitutional challenge to the Act for exceeding the scope of the treaty power. According to the court’s opinion, this was a result largely dictated by Missouri v. Holland.”

    At issue is not the fact that Bond was convicted for federal mail law violations associated with her poisoning scheme, and could have been convicted under state law had state authorities pursued the matter. Rather, the issue is that “Bond was [also] convicted for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 229(a), the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, enacted by Congress to implement the United States’ treaty obligations under an international arms-control agreement that prohibits nation-states from producing, stockpiling, or using chemical weapons.”

    Under our federal system, only the state possess the police powers. Or as the Supreme Court said in United States v. Lopez (striking down the federal gun free school zone act):

    nder our federal system, the "‘States possess primary authority for defining and enforcing the criminal law.'" Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. ___, ___ (1993) (quoting Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 128 (1982)); see also Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 109 (1945) (plurality opinion) ("Our national government is one of delegated powers alone. Under our federal system the administration of criminal justice rests with the States except as Congress, acting within the scope of those delegated powers, has created offenses against the United States"). When Congress criminalizes conduct already denounced as criminal by the States, it effects a "‘change in the sensitive relation between federal and state criminal jurisdiction.'" United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396, 411-412 (1973) (quoting United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 349 (1971)).

    The Obama Administration’s Department of Justice is expected to continue to argue before the Supreme Court in this case that the federal government may expand its powers over the people and the states by way of international treaties, notwithstanding the fact that this “effects a change in the sensitive relation between federal and state criminal jurisdiction.” If the Supreme Court agrees with the Department of Justice, then it will be clear that entering into an international small arms treaty would provide the federal government potentially unlimited power to regulate firearms.

    No matter what you think now, everybody better grab some popcorn and pay attention. The stakes are high and the Supreme Court has, as noted by Ilya Somin, not only issued a "rare unanimous decision on a federalism issue" (Tenth Amendment standing), but subsequently granted certiorari on the merits in "one of the rare cases that get to the Supreme Court twice."

    And the most famous of those rare cases that get to the Supreme Court twice? Well that would be the treaty power case of Reid v. Covert where the Supreme Court during World War II, reversing itself on re-hearing in a plurality decision, held that an Executive Agreement (kind of a mini-me treaty) between the United States and Great Britain did not vitiate Americans' Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment constitutional protections in criminal trials.

    Mike Stollenwerk, DC Gun Rights Examiner

    Mike Stollenwerk retired from the U.S. Army after over 20 years of service to attend law school at Georgetown University. Mike lives in Virginia, and manages OpenCarry.org with John Pierce. Mike@OpenCarry.org
     
  2. bill1949

    bill1949 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,739
  3. CharlieAMA

    CharlieAMA TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    12,584
    Location:
    God's Country
    Well- we're being screwed, and their not wearing a condom. Charlie
     
  4. slowdp

    slowdp TS Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    779
    hell - they are not even using a lube
     
  5. 2500 HD

    2500 HD Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    692
    Hold up a mirror and you'll be able to watch yourself getting screwed on this one.
     
  6. SirMissalott

    SirMissalott Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,241
    And to think an American could vote for such a socialist!!!
     
  7. likes-to-shoot

    likes-to-shoot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    6,092
    Location:
    Iowa
    Look at the 1957 date on the above website artical and match it with this:


    the most famous of those rare cases that get to the Supreme Court twice? Well that would be the treaty power case of

    """"""" Reid v. Covert where the Supreme Court during World War II""""""""

    , reversing itself on re-hearing in a plurality decision, held that an Executive Agreement (kind of a mini-me treaty) between the United States and Great Britain did not vitiate Americans' Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment constitutional protections in criminal trials.


    Read the opinion of the court paragraph twice while you are at it!!!!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.