Obama Seeks to Use UN Treaty to Go Around Congress Yet Again!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Obama Seeks US Congressional Ratification of UN Global Gun Control Treaty

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-seeks ... reaty.html

Susanne Posel
Prisonplanet.com
June 14, 2012

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State has announced that the Obama administration is working with the United Nations (UN) to approve, through the US Congress, the Small Arms Treaty (SAT).

Clinton affirmed that the US would facilitate talks with the UN in the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, as long as it “operates under the rules of consensus decision-making. Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.”

This global gun control scheme, concocted by the UN, is called the International Arms Control Treaty (IACT). Disguised as a way to combat terrorism, insurgents and international criminals, this document endeavors to secure that the world’s citizens cannot defend themselves.

The IACT will empower the UN to literally force the US government to:


Enact internationally agreed licensing requirements for Americans.
Confiscate and destroy unauthorized firearms of Americans while allowing the US government to keep theirs.
Ban trade, sale and private ownership of semi-automatic guns.
Create and mandate an international registry to organize an encompassing gun confiscation in America.



Yet again an end run around that which he can not get enacted by way of Congress!
Americans had better wake up to exactly what obama is doing. For this cedes not only our gun rights but another chunk of our Sovereignty as well. -Tyr

[Missileman]

loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.

Operation Fast and Furious comes to mind.

Fortunately, for the moment at least, the GoP majority in the House will keep this from going anywhere.

[Gaffer]

He's only got about 6 months to get all this into place. Hopefully congress will delay him. But I won't hold my breath.

[Dilloduck]

bad link


on a side note--

http://www.krdo.com/news/Employee-ki...3/-/index.html

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

State Rights


Treaties Do Not Supersede
the Constitution

The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: "Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution".

The Second follow-up lie is this one: "A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside".

HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that

1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.
2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,

3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading.

The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’
"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!

At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that,

"The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent."
Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it.

The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:

"This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument."
The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear : TREATIES DO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT !!! CASE CLOSED.

Now we must let our elected "representatives" in Washington and the State legislatures know that we no longer believe the BIG LIE... we know that we are not bound by unconstitutional Treaties, Executive Orders, Presidential Directives, and other such treasonous acts.

[Note: the above information was taken from Aid & Abet Police Newsletter, with limited revision. P.O. Box 8712, Phoenix, Arizona. Acknowledgment given to Claire Kelly, for her good assistance and in depth treaty research. The use of this information is not to be construed as endorsement of Aid & Abet Police Newsletter. Claire Kelly is a trusted and knowledgeable friend. - CDR]

__________________________________________


Here's what Thomas Jefferson said on the right to renounce treaties:

"Compacts then, between a nation and a nation, are obligatory on them as by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts. There are circumstances, however, which sometimes excuse the non-performance of contracts between man and man; so are there also between nation and nation. When performance, for instance, becomes impossible, non-performance is not immoral; so if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others".
pg 317 - "The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson," A. Koch & Wm. Peden, Random House 1944, renewed 1972. Jefferson also said in a letter to Wilson C. Nicholas on Sept. 7, 1803, Ibid. pg 573

"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction [interpretation]. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution."

Please read the last line in which Jefferson summed up of the absolute Supremacy of our Constitution.
I'll gladly pledge my life and honor on Jefferson's words so eloquently spoken! -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Operation Fast and Furious comes to mind.

Fortunately, for the moment at least, the GoP majority in the House will keep this from going anywhere.

True but a "for the moment" is but a brief rest from the coming tyrrany!
We may have a chance to halt this by way of the coming election.
If not , then we are surely going to be in for the fight of our lives!-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

bad link


on a side note--

http://www.krdo.com/news/Employee-ki...3/-/index.html

I do not understand the connection. What does that terrible accident have to do with the topic and our gunrights and sovereignty?
Explain please.-Tyr

[logroller]

I do not understand the connection. What does that terrible accident have to do with the topic and our gunrights and sovereignty?
Explain please.-Tyr

An alleged smoke screen which has more devastating effects.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

An alleged smoke screen which has more devastating effects.

OK, I see. Appears to me to be a fairly wicked little smoke screen if we sign the treaty. For my guess is that a lot of damage can be done before any SCOTUS ruling would be handed down.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

State Rights


Treaties Do Not Supersede
the Constitution


Here's what Thomas Jefferson said on the right to renounce treaties:

"Compacts then, between a nation and a nation, are obligatory on them as by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts. There are circumstances, however, which sometimes excuse the non-performance of contracts between man and man; so are there also between nation and nation. When performance, for instance, becomes impossible, non-performance is not immoral; so if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others".
pg 317 - "The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson," A. Koch & Wm. Peden, Random House 1944, renewed 1972. Jefferson also said in a letter to Wilson C. Nicholas on Sept. 7, 1803, Ibid. pg 573

"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction [interpretation]. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution."

Please read the last line in which Jefferson summed up of the absolute Supremacy of our Constitution.
I'll gladly pledge my life and honor on Jefferson's words so eloquently spoken! -Tyr

My ancestors did not shed blood , sweat and tears so that this freaking lying traitor could come along and by way of Treaty void the 2nd Amendment and our National Sovereignty ! By attempting this he is trying to give Congress critters and Senators enough cover so they can then claim having voted for only a Treaty and not having passed any restrictive gun laws. In cowboy terms it is just like being to scared to face the Sheriff, so go out of the town and bushwhack him at longe range! Regardless of outcome , the fact that obama attempts such points to a very serious and grave danger this nation faces from its own President!-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

I do not understand the connection. What does that terrible accident have to do with the topic and our gunrights and sovereignty?
Explain please.-Tyr

The guy probably does more to fight for second amendment rights that anyone in the state. I shoot at his range and knew his wife. Google Dragon Mans
Other than that--nothing. I shoulda posted it elsewhere.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The guy probably does more to fight for second amendment rights that anyone in the state. I shoot at his range and knew his wife. Google Dragon Mans
Other than that--nothing. I shoulda posted it elsewhere.

Thats plenty in my book. Would have been nice if you had posted it with the first post.
Sorry that I missed your point the first time . Also sorry the man's wife died from the accident.-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Thats plenty in my book. Would have been nice if you had posted it with the first post.
Sorry that I missed your point the first time . Also sorry the man's wife died from the accident.-Tyr

I'm sorry I couldn't save you from jumping to a conclusion.
It's all good.

[ConHog]

My ancestors did not shed blood , sweat and tears so that this freaking lying traitor could come along and by way of Treaty void the 2nd Amendment and our National Sovereignty ! By attempting this he is trying to give Congress critters and Senators enough cover so they can then claim having voted for only a Treaty and not having passed any restrictive gun laws. In cowboy terms it is just like being to scared to face the Sheriff, so go out of the town and bushwhack him at longe range! Regardless of outcome , the fact that obama attempts such points to a very serious and grave danger this nation faces from its own President!-Tyr

Youre truly insane. This treaty even if signed wouldnt give anyone the authority to take your guns.

Oohh they want an international standard for registration. Im sure our registration laws already meet the standard.

We also already confiscate and destroy certain weapons.

I found no mention of banning semi autos

[Kathianne]

Youre truly insane. This treaty even if signed wouldnt give anyone the authority to take your guns.

Oohh they want an international standard for registration. Im sure our registration laws already meet the standard.

We also already confiscate and destroy certain weapons.

I found no mention of banning semi autos

Actually there are many reasons to be concerned about this.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/21/se...n-arms-treaty/

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) introduced legislation this week to protect the rights of American gun owners from being undermined by a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Second Amendment Sovereignty Act, S.2205, would prohibit the Obama Administration from using the “voice, vote, and influence” of the United States during Arms Trade Treaty negotiations to restrict in any way the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens, including regulation of civilian firearms and ammunition.


“The Second Amendment Sovereignty Act ensures that our country’s sovereignty and firearm freedoms will not be infringed upon by an international organization made up of many countries with little respect for gun rights,” Sen. Moran said. “Our Second Amendment rights are not negotiable.”


In October of 2009 at the U.N. General Assembly, the Obama Administration reversed the previous Administration’s position and voted for the United States to participate in negotiating the Arms Trade Treaty, purportedly to establish “common international standards for the import, export, and transfer of conventional arms,” including tanks, helicopters, and missiles. However, with regular calls to include civilian arms and ammunition within its scope, the Arms Trade Treaty could restrict the lawful ownership of firearms that Americans use to hunt, target shoot, and defend themselves. The Treaty is expected to be finalized in July 2012.


“America leads the world in export standards to ensure arms are transferred for legitimate purposes, and this bill will make certain that law-abiding Americans are not wrongfully penalized,” Sen. Moran continued.
The introduction of the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act is Sen. Moran’s most recent effort in his push to make sure an Arms Trade Treaty that undermines the constitutional rights of American gun owners is dead on arrival in the Senate. In July 2011, Sen. Moran led 44 of his Senate colleagues in notifying President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton of their intent to oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty that in any way restricts Americans’ Second Amendment rights. This opposition is enough to block the treaty from Senate passage, as treaties submitted to the U.S. Senate require approval of two-thirds of Senators present to be ratified.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/21/se...#ixzz1y1qB6RG0