[coqui33]

3rd Circuit rules that treaties supersede US Constitution.

http://www.cato.org/publications/leg...nited-states-0

On remand to the Philadelphia-based U.S Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Bond (now with standing to challenge that law) raised the argument that Congress's limited and enumerated powers cannot be increased by treaties. We again filed in that case in support of Bond. The Third Circuit disagreed, however—if reluctantly—based on one sentence by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Missouri v. Holland (1920) that has been interpreted to mean that Congress's constitutional powers can indeed be expanded by treaties.

[Kingarthurhk]

This has disturbing implications regarding the Bill of Rights, and the future of freedom in our country.

[coqui33]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

This has disturbing implications regarding the Bill of Rights, and the future of freedom in our country.

Right. Imagine, for example, that the UN small arms treaty explicitly states that it is enforceable once signed by a head of state and need not be ratified by a senate.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by coqui33

Right. Imagine, for example, that the UN small arms treaty explicitly states that it is enforceable once signed by a head of state and need not be ratified by a senate.

That would eliminate the Second Amendment. Now, imagine the United States made a treaty with Vatican. That would eliminate the Frist Amemendment here as well.

[brokenprism]

Whether they pass it, ratify it, or not, they simply will NOT enjoy trying to enforce it, and they know that. Civil war interrupts the flow of commerce, and political power is about power over the treasury first and foremost.

The logical way to proceed is to invite the UN in to disarm the public, and that's when we'll need the ARs everyone says we don't need. An invasion in 2012 will be no different than the last one in 1812, and if they say the 2A is about a militia, fine, we're a militia.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by brokenprism

Whether they pass it, ratify it, or not, they simply will NOT enjoy trying to enforce it, and they know that. Civil war interrupts the flow of commerce, and political power is about power over the treasury first and foremost.

The logical way to proceed is to invite the UN in to disarm the public, and that's when we'll need the ARs everyone says we don't need. An invasion in 2012 will be no different than the last one in 1812, and if they say the 2A is about a militia, fine, we're a militia.

It sounds like you are trying to apply logic to a government operation.

[NMPOPS]

Nowhere in that did I read that treaties no longer need to be passed by a 2/3rds vote of the Senate. The President can sign any treaty he likes but it means nothing until passed in the Senate.

[John Rambo]

Originally Posted by NMPOPS

Nowhere in that did I read that treaties no longer need to be passed by a 2/3rds vote of the Senate. The President can sign any treaty he likes but it means nothing until passed in the Senate.

[GlocknSpiehl]

Originally Posted by NMPOPS

Nowhere in that did I read that treaties no longer need to be passed by a 2/3rds vote of the Senate. The President can sign any treaty he likes but it means nothing until passed in the Senate.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I want to keep correcting this mistake that everyone everywhere, not just here on Glocktalk, makes. The Constitution does NOT require "a 2/3rds vote of the Senate".

Here is the relevant part of the US Constitution, Article II, Section 2:

"He [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;"

Two thirds PRESENT, not two thirds total! That means all the Dems have to do is have 51 Senators, a quorum, present to vote on the treaty of which 2/3 would be 34 Senators voting yes to ratify the treaty. Currently there are exactly 51 Democratic Party Senators, plus 2 Independents who vote with Democrats.

Now who thinks that the Democrats would not do this?

You MUST educate yourself and everyone you know about this, so that we remain vigilant about this treaty, as well as any other bad treaty. It is not and has never been a 2/3 majority of all Senators, only those present and voting. As long as there are 51 Senators there to constitute a quorum, the Dems can ram through a treaty.

[coqui33]

You all may be missing the original point. If SCOTUS upholds the 3rd Circuit's ruling, then treaties supersede the Consitution. What the Constitution says would be irrelevant.

[Bren]

I'm going to have to read the case. The conclusion and the description linked to don't even make sense with each other.

EDIT: as usual Cato is misleading you. To get that the Bond decision said treaties can expand Congress' powers beyond what the constitution allows, they first have to ignore the entire history of constitutional law and use their own version of what Congress' powers are.

Basically, she claims that Congress can't legislate in support of the treaty, because it isn't a power expressly given to Congress under the constitution (she based her argument on the 10th amendment), but the court said "we can make treaties, so the "necessary and proper" clause allows Congress to pass statutes "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers." Duh.

That doesn't allow Congress to make a treaty that exceeds the limitations placed on it by the constitution, such as in the bill of rights, which is what Cato and the like would like to imply by this and then extend over to the U.N. small arms treaty, to scare you.

Findlaw summarizes it as:

US v. Bond, 08-2677
A conviction under the penal provision of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 is affirmed, where: 1) the defendant's behavior clearly constituted unlawful possession and use of a chemical weapon under the Act; 2) the Convention is valid under any reasonable conception of the Treaty Power's scope; 3) the Act is valid under the Necessary and Proper Clause, as it does not go beyond the Convention; and 4) the Act does not disrupt the balance of power between the federal government and the states in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

They don't have the full decision up yet.

EDIT again: I believe this is the actual decision:

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx...WAR3-2007-CURR

[NMPOPS]

Originally Posted by GlocknSpiehl

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I want to keep correcting this mistake that everyone everywhere, not just here on Glocktalk, makes. The Constitution does NOT require "a 2/3rds vote of the Senate".

Here is the relevant part of the US Constitution, Article II, Section 2:

"He [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;"

Two thirds PRESENT, not two thirds total! That means all the Dems have to do is have 51 Senators, a quorum, present to vote on the treaty of which 2/3 would be 34 Senators voting yes to ratify the treaty. Currently there are exactly 51 Democratic Party Senators, plus 2 Independents who vote with Democrats.

Now who thinks that the Democrats would not do this?

You MUST educate yourself and everyone you know about this, so that we remain vigilant about this treaty, as well as any other bad treaty. It is not and has never been a 2/3 majority of all Senators, only those present and voting. As long as there are 51 Senators there to constitute a quorum, the Dems can ram through a treaty.

So you think that somehow the Senate will go into session with only 51 Demos present? Get real! When was the last time you heard of any vote taking place without 95+ members present? Please cite the vote. There is a treaty signed by our last Demo president Clinton, a South American Treat that has never been brought up for a vote. Why? Because they do have the support!

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

[coqui33]

Originally Posted by Bren

,,, Basically, she claims that Congress can't legislate in support of the treaty, because it isn't a power expressly given to Congress under the constitution (she based her argument on the 10th amendment), but the court said "we can make treaties, so the "necessary and proper" clause allows Congress to pass statutes "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers." Duh.

That doesn't allow Congress to make a treaty that exceeds the limitations placed on it by the constitution, such as in the bill of rights, which is what Cato and the like would like to imply by this and then extend over to the U.N. small arms treaty, to scare you.

...

I believe this is the actual decision:

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx...WAR3-2007-CURR

Thank you for researching this case. Apparently, it is not conclusive enough regarding treaties superseding the Constitution to justify alarm. On the other hand, IMHO, it is enough to justify watchful concern.

[Bren]

Cato sounded pretty cool when I first heard of them. Then again, so did the ACLU. Same thing, biased to the other side and equally credible.