Obama expected to sign global gun control treaty

[Twana Blevins]

The Examiner

Penned by Jim Kouri

Obama is famous for saying that America's patriots "cling to their religion and guns" as if that were something shameful. "If liberals are attacked what do they cling to? Their food stamps and energy-saving life bulbs?" quipped a political strategist.

While most of the news outlets in the United States have engulfed Americans in news coverage regarding the economy and the 2012 presidential elections, little if any news coverage exists about major actions being considered by President Barack Obama and progressive lawmakers, including the signing of a United Nations gun control treaty on July 27, according to Dick Morris, a former Bill Clinton political advisor.

Apparently the United States will sign-on to an International Gun Control Plan pushed by the United Nations that's already received the blessings of Secretary Hillary Clinton, according to the State Department.

Secretary Clinton has been pushing for the United States to become a party to a global gun control treaty since she began heading the State Department. And President Obama appears to be overly sympathetic to such an international power-grab, according to gun rights groups, according to gun rights activists such as John Snyder and Larry Pratt.

"Last week, the Obama Administration took its first major step in a long-range plan to ban firearms in the United States. The Obama Administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations," according to journalist Joan Sharon.

By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the U.S. State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the U.S. government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments, according to political consultant and attorney Michael S. Baker.

"These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as radical billionaire George Soros and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg," said Baker.

"The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms," according to Joan Sharon.

"The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our Second Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened," she added.

Critics believe Obama will appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation in the United States that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is committing the U.S. to international treaties and foreign gun control laws.

"We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment," Ms. Sharon stated.

And former police detective Samuel Ginsburg uses the Operation Fast and Furious scandal as an example of Obama's infatuation with disarming Americans. He claims the goal of the gun-walking operation was to place even more sanctions on gun dealers and owners.

"These people came up with an amateurish police operation designed to prove their point about a need for stiffer gun laws. And it blew up in their faces as they hide behind executive privilege likes rats hide from an exterminator," said Ginsburg.

_________________________________________

Jim Kouri, Law Enforcement Examiner

Jim Kouri, CPP, the fifth Vice President and Public Information Officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, has served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Contact Jim. What others are saying about Jim Kouri: Semana.com...

[Ed Watts]

The treaty will not be ratified; that requires a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate, and that won't happen.

[Twana Blevins]

Are you talking about the Senate that hasn't done a thing to stop any of hussein Obama's unconstitutional executive orders or done anything about hussein not being a natural born citizen or the Senate that does not listen to us, the very folks they are suppose to be representing us? The Senate that is helping kill our constitutional republic at record speed? That Senate? Everyone thinks we have some conservative U.S. Senators. They believe Tom Coburn to be one of them. However, I watched him say (words coming out of his mouth)....This is not constitutional.......and then he voted for it anyway! That Senate?

Another interesting thing.......I keep hearing "congress has to ratify it........however, they said the same thing - It is congress's job to deal with illegal alien invaders and their anchor babies....plus many more 'have to go through congress' issues......so far hussein Obama just goes around them and writes a dictator executive order and. And yet we still think anyone in the U.S. Senate is going to do their job?

[Johnny Smith]

Wait a minute Twana. Did we not have a discussion on this very subject just a few days ago? I believe I remember that you posted the honest answer to this problem. The president and senate are allowed to enter into treaties under the authority granted them in the constitution. This would fall into the catagory of not authorized to them under the constitution since it would violate it. Let me see if I can find the previous discussion to see exactly what the post was, I know it was good.

[Johnny Smith]

Here is the link to what you posted on Sunday that I thought answered this question the best. Publius-Huldah's Blog
Understanding the Constitution

[Twana Blevins]

Treaties: WHEN are they part of “the supreme Law of the Land”?

By Publius Huldah.

If the U.S. Senate ratifies the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, will it become part of the supreme Law of the Land?   If the Senate ratifies the “cap and trade” climate change treaty, will that become part of the supreme Law of the Land?

We hear it said that whenever the Senate ratifies a treaty, it becomes part of “the supreme Law of the Land”.  But is that True?  Not necessarily!  Walk with me, and I will show you how to think through this question, and how to analyze other constitutional questions which come your way.

You must always ask: Is this authorized in the Constitution? Where exactly in the Constitution? And precisely what is authorized by the Constitution?

1.  Does the federal government have authority to make treaties?  Can treaties be about any object? Or, are the proper objects of treaties limited by The Constitution?

Article II, §2, cl. 2, U.S. Constitution, says the President:

… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur…

Article VI, cl. 2 says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]

Thus, we see that the federal government is authorized to make treaties.  Now, we must find out whether there are limitations on this treaty making power.

2. It is a classic rule of construction (rules for understanding the objective meaning of texts) ¹ that one must give effect to every word and phrase.  The clause does not say, “Treaties made by the United States are part of the supreme Law of the Land”. Instead, it says Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, are part of the supreme Law of the Land.

So we see right away that a Treaty is part of the supreme Law of the Land only if it is made “under the Authority of the United States“.

3.  From where do the President and the Senate get Authority to act?  From The Constitution. The objects of their lawful powers are enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, the President and Senate must be authorized in the Constitution to act on an object before any Treaty made by them on that object qualifies as part of “the supreme Law of the Land”.  If the Constitution does not authorize the President and Congress to act on an object, the Treaty is not “Law” – it is a mere usurpation, and deserves to be treated as such. (Federalist Paper No. 33, last para).

Because the Constitution is “fundamental” law (Federalist No. 78, 11^th & 12^th paras), it is The Standard by which the legitimacy of all Presidential Acts, all Acts of Congress, all Treaties, and all Judicial Decisions is measured (Federalist No. 78, 10^th para).

4.  In Federalist No. 44 (7^th para from end), James Madison explains why it is necessary that Art. VI, cl. 2, provide that federal treaties have supremacy over State Constitutions.  Otherwise, a treaty which violates a State Constitution would have no effect in that State:

…as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law of great and equal importance to the States would interfere with some and not with other constitutions and would consequently be valid in some of the States at the same time that it would have no effect in others. [emphasis added]

Madison thus illustrates the Principle that a treaty which interferes with the Constitution has no effect.  I found no other discussion in The Federalist Papers on this point.

So, let us turn to Thomas Jefferson, who wrote: ²

In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise. –Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408 [emphasis added]

Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way. –Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:442 [emphasis added]

According to the rule established by usage and common sense, of construing one part of the instrument by another, the objects on which the President and Senate may exclusively act by treaty are much reduced, but the field on which they may act with the sanction of the Legislature is large enough; and I see no harm in rendering their sanction necessary, and not much harm in annihilating the whole treaty-making power, except as to making peace. –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1796. ME 9:330 [emphasis added]

5. So!  The treaty making power of the United States is very limited. What, then, are the proper objects of treaties?  To find the answer, we must go to The Constitution to see what it authorizes the President and the Congress to do.  The Constitution delegates to Congress powers “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations … and with the Indian Tribes” (Art I, § 8, cl. 3); and “To declare War…and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” (Art I, § 8, cl. 11).  The Constitution authorizes the President to “…appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls…” (Art II, §2, cl. 2).

The authors of The Federalist Papers address the treaty making power of the United States.  John Jay says treaties relate to “war, peace, and to commerce” and to the promotion of “trade and navigation” (Federalist No. 64, 3^rd & 6^th paras).  Madison says treaties also relate to sending and receiving ambassadors & consuls and to commerce (Federalist No. 42, 1^st four paras).

There may be additional objects of the treaty making power authorized in The Constitution.  For example, Art I, § 8, cl. 8, authorizes Congress “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries“.  Thus, The United States could properly enter into treaties respecting patents & copyrights. ³

6. Let’s look now at the proposed U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.  If ratified by the Senate, would it become part of “the supreme Law of the Land”?

To answer that Question, we must ask:  Does the Constitution grant to Congress the power to make laws respecting “children”?  Does the Constitution grant to the Executive Branch jurisdiction over “children”?

The answer to both questions is “NO!”  In addition, the 10th Amendment says if a power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited to the States by Art. I, §10, it is reserved to the States or the people.  Thus, jurisdiction over “children” is reserved to the States or the People!  Accordingly, if the Senate were to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, the treaty would NOT become part of “the supreme Law of the Land”, because it would not have been made under the Authority of the United States.  It would be a mere usurpation and would deserve to be treated as such.

If the Senate were to ratify the cap-and-trade “climate” treaty, which, among other things, would force energy companies to buy allowances or permits for their “carbon emissions”, would it become part of “the supreme law of the Land”?  You are now equipped to find the answer, and you can confidently defend it!

Do not forget: The federal government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by international treaties.  It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution.

7.  Finally, Thomas Jefferson points to a legislative remedy if the President and the Senate ignore the constitutional limits on the treaty making power of the United States. Thomas Jefferson says: ²

We conceive the constitutional doctrine to be, that though the President and Senate have the general power of making treaties, yet wherever they include in a treaty matters confided by the Constitution to the three [did he mean, "two"?] branches of Legislature, an act of legislation will be requisite to confirm these articles, and that the House of Representatives, as one branch of the Legislature, are perfectly free to pass the act or to refuse it, governing themselves by their own judgment whether it is for the good of their constituents to let the treaty go into effect or not. –Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1796. ME 9:329 [emphasis added]

I was glad… to hear it admitted on all hands, that laws of the United States, subsequent to a treaty, control its operation, and that the Legislature is the only power which can control a treaty. Both points are sound beyond doubt.–Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1798. ME 10:41

What a man! And our system of checks & balances is an elegant one, indeed!

8.  Folks!  For too long, we have blindly accepted whatever we hear others say.  Someone on TV says, “If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it will become part of the supreme Law of the Land!”  And not only do we believe it, we repeat it to others.  And thus, we became part of the misinformation dissemination network.  In order to restore our Constitutional Republic with its federal form of government, we must rediscover how to think and analyze. And then, we must boldly say, “They don’t have authority under The Constitution to do that!” PH

Endnotes:

¹ Educators no longer teach “rules of construction”, because it has become the dogma of our time that texts have no “objective meaning” to be discovered.  Instead, each person is to come up with his own “understanding” – and one person’s “understanding” is as good as another’s.  A friend recalls the following incident which occurred in his high school English class during 1960:  The class read a short story, and then the teacher asked each student to say what the story meant to him.  Whatever a student said was praised by the teacher.  But when it was my friend’s turn, he said:  “It doesn’t matter what it means to me – what matters is what the author meant.”  The teacher was not pleased with this ‘out of place’ comment.  Is it any wonder many judges feel free to “understand” the Constitution any way they please?  They were conditioned in school to “think” this way; and they did not resist the conditioning.

² I originally obtained these Jefferson quotes from the University of Virginia webpage on Thomas Jefferson.  However, they have since reorganized their Jefferson pages, and I can no longer find the quotes there. I will have to find these quotes somewhere else.

³ It has been said that Charles Dickens’ works were pirated, printed and sold in these United States without paying any royalties to Dickens!  A copyright treaty with Great Britain would have discouraged this theft of Dickens’ intellectual property. PH

September 18, 2009; revised July 11, 2012.

[joanne]

In case you have not noticed, there has not been any voting recently At this point his word is law, most of our politicians seem to go along with him, and give him more power every day. We should have tossed the UN out years ago, but that never happened, now it may be to late. They are among those that want to control the entire world and eliminate most people world wide.

[joanne]

Gun owner or not, everyone should object to any part of the constitution being eliminated. Our forefathers were much smarter than any of our politicians, and probably smarter than all of them together. Why this pretender is still sitting in our oval office, I will never understand. When first he refused to produce his birth certificate, he should have been impeached.Against the constitution. Now, they sit in Washington, collect big salaries, and ignore what has happened to our country, and what is going to happen to our people. They think they are safe, but they will no longer be needed when HE has accomplished his mission. Say hello to the FEMA camps, and welcome  to "little Hitler"     

[Chaplain Thomas Gilbert Cole]

""{{NULL AND VOID}}""!

[Roy Otterman]

Where were everybody when that traitor liberal Clinton and the usurper have been doing this for years, working with the UN towards this treaty? Now, everybody is up and angry, worried and all ... that is hypocritical!

There is one way out ... expose and hang the illegal usurper "president" and nullify all his work, along with all those traitors who enabled him (Pelosi. corrupt judges, etc).

If this is not done ... there is no hope and no future for all "politically correct" Americans.

[Twana Blevins]

Roy I was not paying attention. I was living the American Dream. There! Now get off our backs and don't call us hypocritical! NOW we know what is going on! And we are now figuring out what to do ....... if you only want to point fingers...I suggest you move on............if you wanna work with us, then get off the pointing finger crap and work with us! 'I told you so' pedestals are not helpful - actually they are nothing more than grandstanding and unhelpful!

[Christine Ulferts]

Since the senate is the only body that votes on these so called treaties, it is a done deal on the gun ban treaty!  The only other option in order to get rid of it, is a constitutional amendment letting the next president to abolish the treaty.  Treaties are right now considered the same as an amendment of the constitution!  And lets not forget about Hillary Clinton who has been working out the gun ban treaty for Hussain to get it passed!  The news yesterday was that the UN is going to put IRAN on the gun ban treaty board!  ARE THEY F---ING SERIOUS!  BEFORE HUSSAIN LEAVES OFFICEM, HE WILL DESTRIOY THIS COUNTRY!!!!!!!!  Dick Morris told us about this treaty as well as the other 2 treaties, lost and childrens, over 2 years ago and it's all in his book SCREWED!

[Kenneth Moore]

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

Tell you senators this fact.

he three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.

The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion).

These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada.

The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states.

Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states:

"The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose.

Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."

The Honorable William Gordon

Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917