President Barack Hussein Obama via the instrument of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is intent on signing and ratifying U.N. Small Arms Treaty.
Doug Book writes that the U.S. Constitution trumps Foreign Treaties. However, unless Congress acts in a nay or yea manner the President can enforce a Foreign Treaty within the U.S. rule of law. Book shows the Supreme Court has upheld Constitutional supremacy; however he does not touch on the possibility of a private citizen or citizens' ability to challenge Treaty enforcement while Congress is inactive on ratification. It would seem such a scenario indeed can and should take place.
JRH 7/28/12
*********************************
Why Obama-Backed UN Treaties Can’t Trample Constitution
By Doug Book
July 27, 2012
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s expected signing of the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty has once again raised the question of whether the terms of a treaty can take precedence over—even nullify—the rights acknowledged and secured by the Constitution of the United States.
For decades, apostles of one-world government have endeavored to convince the American people that treaties, rather than the Constitution, embody the supreme law of the land. In 1952, Secretary of State and Council on Foreign Relations member John Foster Dulles told the American Bar Association that “Treaty law can override the Constitution.” “Treaties for example…can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.”
But the Supreme Court has more than once decided against the propaganda of the new world order crowd. In the landmark case Reid v Covert, the Court ruled”…no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.” In short, as “[the Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty,” the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, and treaties may neither supplant nor amend it.
However, treaty articles have been willfully applied in the U.S. regardless of constitutional requirements or Supreme Court decisions. A century ago, Theodore Roosevelt signed and implemented the terms of a treaty “..for two years before the Senate acted.” He later stated that he “…would have continued it until the end of [his] term, if necessary, without any action by Congress.” Roosevelt claimed, “the Constitution did not explicitly give me power to bring about the necessary agreement with Santo Domingo. But the Constitution did not forbid my doing what I did.” (3)
Would a re-elected Obama follow Roosevelt’s example by pressing the Arms Trade Treaty on the American public? Certainly, the Eric Holder Department of Justice would have no compunction about enforcing this latest of Obama’s unconstitutional schemes to undermine the 2nd Amendment. And how could the combined might and authority of the executive branch be prevented from exploiting the terms of this document in a federal assault on the right to keep and bear arms?
The Reid Court wrote that “…an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution.” But if Barack Obama was willing to inflict the unconstitutional terms of a treaty on the American people, he would certainly be willing to ignore any Court ruling that sought to prevent it.
Though Congress has the authority to nullify a treaty legislatively and federal courts have the power to overturn any unconstitutional terms, the American public has learned that neither of these institutions can be trusted with the defense of the Constitution or the rights it secures. Should Barack Obama win re-election, it will be up to the people to defend their 2nd Amendment rights. And that could make for a very messy affair.
Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach
___________________________
© 2012 Western Journalism
Founded in 1991 by Joseph Farah (the brains behind WND.com news website) and James H. Smith (former publisher of the Sacramento Union), the Western Center for Journalism has been sponsoring and training investigative journalists for over two decades.
The WCJ first made its mark following the suspicious death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster during the Clinton presidency. Officially ruled a suicide by authorities, reporter Christopher Ruddy–with assistance from the Western Center for Journalism–unearthed evidence that shouted “cover up!” No matter how hard the Clinton Administration tried to conceal the real cause of Foster’s death, Ruddy’s dogged investigations clearly showed that the suicide ruling was phony.
Today, the Center is led by columnist and veteran broadcaster Floyd Brown. Brown is the author of five books and, as an investigator, helped unearth the Whitewater scandal during the Clinton administration.
The Western Center for Journalism is a vigorous watchdog that keeps a check on government abuse and the media. The Center believes strongly in open public debate. It also believes that informed public debate requires quality journalism and reporting.
Western Journalism is working to provide quality journalism and reporting by exposing bias and falsehoods in the liberal, mainstream media.
We also actively publish numerous independent citizen journalists at WesternJournalism.com so that ignored information and under-reported stories will be available online. The WesternJournalism.com website covers a wide variety of topics from media bias to media industry news as well as articles about the impact of “citizen journalists”. Sign up for our regular e-mail updates to stay informed.
In addition, the Center trains individuals to become “Citizen Journalists” and bloggers. These individuals are provided with technical training and practical advice on quality reporting and commentary.
No comments:
Post a Comment