FROM GATEWAY PUNDIT
Joseph Stalin’s firearms confiscation was a tremendous success for the Socialist state.
Under the Tsar, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. That all changed when Stalin and the communists took control. Stalin was able to control, starve, punish and imprison a defenseless people… after he took their guns. (Zinnfigur)
Under the Tsar, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. That all changed when Stalin and the communists took control. Stalin was able to control, starve, punish and imprison a defenseless people… after he took their guns. (Zinnfigur)
But before Stalin could confiscate the guns he needed a national gun registry.
In April the United Nations passed sweeping legislation that will regulate the international arms trade and could lead to a national registry in the United States.
Barack Obama is reportedly going to sign the treaty this month while Congress is on vacation.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE WHOLE STORY.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE WHOLE STORY.
11 comments:
Obama demonstrates his unique brand of "courage" timing his signature to Congress' absence.
Reminds me of that speech given by a veteran of the Iraq war, Aaron Weiss, responding to Cuomo's "bravery" in signing the highly contested NY SAFE ACT legislation in the middle of the night:
They said that it took a lot of courage to pass The Safe Act.
Apparently, my definition of courage differs from yours.
You see, if it’s really so courageous a bill, and it took so much courage to pass it,
then why was it done in the middle of the night when no one could see it or read it?
That’s not courage.
That’s a mafia style sit-down to divvy up what’s good for the bosses."
Obama cannot sign this treaty without breaking his solemn oath of office to "preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America". Treason by any other name.
IMPEACH!
time to support Mark Levin's ideas on restoring the Constitution--
C-CS
Obama -- with or without Congress.
Aren't treaties "forever"?
About treaties:
American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law.
But it's a lot more complicated than that!
So, you're saying the Supreme Court can't overthrow a Treaty?
Why is it he can get away with negotiating and signing a Treaty with no oversight?
That makes no sense whatsoever.
If it is the case that a President can do this, then that means, the President can have himself declared King by negotiating a Treaty with another nation.
Pasto,
The matter of treaties is complicated. Repealing a treaty isn't a walk in the park much of the time.
Supposedly, a treaty cannot supersede the Constitution. But the loophole here is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't forbid the establishment of a national gun registry because, TECHNICALLY, a registry doesn't infringe upon the right to own a firearm.
What I'm saying is this: Obama's entering into this treaty is dangerous in the extreme.
See "Repeal" and "Scope of Presidential Powers" HERE.
About treaty obligations:
Withdrawal
Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Other treaties are silent on the issue, and so if a state attempts withdrawal through its own unilateral denunciation of the treaty, a determination must be made regarding whether permitting withdrawal is contrary to the original intent of the parties or to the nature of the treaty.
Human rights treaties, for example, are generally interpreted to exclude the possibility of withdrawal, because of the importance and permanence of the obligations.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution:
[The President] shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...
SCOTUS CAN nullify any unconstitutional application of ANY ISSUE of law.
He can make any deal he wants, but the president and 2/3 of the senators CANNOT overturn the meaning of the constitution save by AMENDMENT.
Any attempt to APPLY any treaty's unconstitutional regulation which is disobeyed to obtain standing would find SCOTUS making the presidential signature and the senate approval MEANINGLESS in the world. That should be a warning to Obama and Reid because it would HARM THIS NATION if that ocurred
Post a Comment