Thursday, October 31, 2013

"Obama DOJ Claims International Treaties Trump The U.S. Constitution."

Tip of the boonie hat to the readers who forwarded this link from Weasel Zippers which leads to this article in the Washington Examiner.
Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S. allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities.


SWIFT said...

Another step closer to the brink! Beyond the troubling issue of sovereignty, is the fact that Holder can find low-life lawyers who would willingly sell us out for a paycheck. We need names!

Frederick H Watkins said...

I wonder who among them that hold that view are willing to risk their lives over it?

Anonymous said...

... Holder can find low-life lawyers who would willingly sell us out for a paycheck. We need names!

John Roberts.

GA Patriot said...

Yeah Holder, good luck enforcing that. Gonna need a lot more blackshirt goons.

Hefferman said...

There is a story of a man who chased a wild cat till he caught it.
When he grabbed the tail, the cat turned, and started chasing the man.

Be very careful what you wish for, you just might get it, and it maybe more than you can handle.

A move like that could be the cow kicking Mrs. O'liery's lamp.

Anonymous said...

Day by day, the temperature is rising in the kettle while the frogs text their latest NSA fodder to friends and family. Pretty soon, they won't feel a thing. Not that they do now.

I always knew this country was filled with fucking morons, but little did I understand how stupid they really are. In my universe, there would be 5-4million armed citizens surrounding these cockroaches granite palaces ready to drag them out and burn them alive.

FIBRE said...

Unfortunately, Art. 6 para. 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides the backstop for their effort.
It's one of a few areas with the Constitution that I take exception.

FillYerHands said...

Personally I hope they bring this before the Supreme Court. The sooner the better, and with the most fanfare possible.

Case law is clear that the Constitution is the law of the land, even in the face of ratified treaties that contain clauses that go against it. (Never mind that the UN Arms Treaty will never be ratified.) And the Justices know this, and they will bring another decision confirming this truth, and the Obama administration and its anti-gun and anti-Constitution cronies will be publicly humiliated.

Of course, the next day, some incident will occur, and the news media's attention will be drawn away. Such is our world.

Anonymous said...

Seems to me that if the constitution is indeed a contract, then like all other contracts what is granted in part A can be modified & superseded by part B.

Meaning that the supremacy clause of treaties is superseded by the amendments following.

Additionally only treaties which are in pursuance of the constitution (& amendments to) and made under authority of the US (arms removed from any imposition of authority) are valid.

ag42b said...

To paraphrase George Washington, "Beware of foreign entanglements".

Our constitution was around long before the failed League of Nations, and the equally failing UN.

The UN should be moved to a "neutral" nation such as Switzerland, and our involvement and financial participation in it should be very limited. If these international outfits do not like private firearms ownership, too bad for them.

Our founders would have had nothing to do with the one-worlders, had they shared the same time period.

The UN is like the EU; nations trade their sovereignty for another layer of unnecessary overpaid bureaucracy.

We need not conform to any international collectivist agenda.

Anonymous said...

Well, we've let Fed trump State, so why not let Int'l trump US? If you're OK with DEA busting medical marijuana dispensaries, then why get uptight about this? It's like the Gov't Spying thing: it's too late to start whining about it now. It needed to be stopped back in 2001/2002.

If a tenth of the keyboard kommandos whining about Big Brother actually did something OTHER than commenting online I bet things would change.

Anonymous said...

FIBRE - not gonna disagree with ya but there is that pesky little detail that says that international treaties in particular MUST be ratified by the senate - afaik that has NOT been done. jeffenk can sign all the treaties that he wants, until they are approved, they ain't worth any more than a check that he would write to you or me..............