Judge Napolitano On UN Arms Treaty: 'A Treaty Cannot Trump A Constitutional Right'

[eduardo89]

Judge Napolitano On UN Arms Treaty: 'A Treaty Cannot Trump An Expressed Right In The Constitution'


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zev8qHwOqqE


On Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry signed the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, designed to regulate international weapons trade. It immediately caused some, however, to worry that it could take away parts of our own Second Amendment rights.

"The fact that John Kerry signed the treaty is just symbolic," Judge Andrew Napolitano said on Fox and Friends on Thursday. "The treaty would have no effect on the United States unless and until it's ratified by two-thirds of the United States Senate, which is a near impossibility."

Napolitano also added that what could be impacted by the treaty includes the ability of importers to import certain amounts of ammunition and weapons from other countries.

What it could not affect, however, is a citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

"A treaty cannot trump an expressed right in the Constitution," he said.

So, why all the worry? The judge explains.

[Zippyjuan]

From the treaty:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/06/04/un-small-arms-treaty-full-text/

Reaffirming

the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system,

[Peace&Freedom]

From the treaty:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/06/04/un-small-arms-treaty-full-text/

Reaffirming
the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system,


That's what's called statutory double talk, treaty level. Doesn't matter what soothing words are used, or that the Senate won't ratify it (we think). What matters to politicians is legal and political cover. Signing the treaty gives a gun-control freak enough wiggle room and legal ambiguity to begin bombarding us with draconian policies and regulations "that harmonize" our treatment of guns with that of the rest of the disarmed world. A consistent constitutionalist will not allow lower statutes or unratified treaties from shaping gun policy going forward, but most craven statist politicians will. That's what Obarry is counting on.

[FrankRep]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/media/k2/items/cache/584af4e8d6c47d03713b760b200e0897_M.jpg (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/16621-attn-john-kerry-treaties-violating-the-constitution-are-not-law-of-the-land)



Treaties that violate the Constitution like the UN Arms Trade Treaty signed today by Secretary of State John Kerry are not the law of the land.


Attn John Kerry: Treaties Violating the Constitution Are Not Law of the Land (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/16621-attn-john-kerry-treaties-violating-the-constitution-are-not-law-of-the-land)


The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
26 September 2013

[aGameOfThrones]

We don't need no stinking UN treaties to trump the second amendment... We take care of that ourselves with local ordinance, state and federal statutes.

[A Son of Liberty]

I wish people would stop referring to them as "constitutional rights". They are not "constitutional rights". There are no such things as "constitutional rights". There are natural rights, or God-given rights, which are [supposedly] protected from government abuse by the constitution.

Calling natural rights 'constitutional rights' creates the perception that these rights are a consequence of the generosity of the state, which of course would make them privileges, not rights, and completely undermines the principle.

/rant

Carry on.

[Zippyjuan]

Is there a list of "God given rights" in the Bible? What rights did God give us?

(Decided to start thread on this subject in the Religion forum).

[Feeding the Abscess]

To constitutionalists:

If it is okay to form a federal government, and have its laws supercede state and local law, why is it bad for nations to form an international government, and have its laws supercede national law, if ever that occurred?

Serious question.

[Pericles]

We don't need no stinking UN treaties to trump the second amendment... We take care of that ourselves with local ordinance, state and federal statutes.

Thread winner

[Pericles]

To constitutionalists:

If it is okay to form a federal government, and have its laws supercede state and local law,



Stop right there. Serious Constitutionalists will tell you that it isn't. Only the US Constitution supercedes state and local law, unless the federal law is pursuant to one or more of the 18 enumerated powers delegated to the federal government.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Stop right there. Serious Constitutionalists will tell you that it isn't. Only the US Constitution supercedes state and local law, unless the federal law is pursuant to one or more of the 18 enumerated powers delegated to the federal government.

According to the supreme court, Obamacare is constitutional. Therefore it's pursuant to one or more of the 18 powers delegated to the federal government, according to the rules set up by the constitution.

But let's take your objection at face value. Why would it be wrong for an international government to be formed, a constitution created, and have laws that supercede laws on local, state, and national levels when they are pursuant to the enumerated powers laid forth in the international constitution?

[Peace&Freedom]

According to the supreme court, Obamacare is constitutional. Therefore it's pursuant to one or more of the 18 powers delegated to the federal government, according to the rules set up by the constitution.

But let's take your objection at face value. Why would it be wrong for an international government to be formed, a constitution created, and have laws that supercede laws on local, state, and national levels when they are pursuant to the enumerated powers laid forth in the international constitution?

Because individual rights and liberties supercede the state at all levels, and those rights DO NOT COME from government, as human government is not the final authority. Adding another layer of government does not likely enhance the protection and recognition of inalienable rights that supercede the state, but more likely will define them as government privileges (i.e., rights as coming from government, which exist only if government is accepted as the final authority).

[Cleaner44]

Because individual rights and liberties supercede the state at all levels, and those rights DO NOT COME from government, as human government is not the final authority. Adding another layer of government does not likely enhance the protection and recognition of inalienable rights that supercede the state, but more likely will define them as government privileges (i.e., rights as coming from government, which exist only if government is accepted as the final authority).

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Peace&Freedom again.

[A Son of Liberty]

Because individual rights and liberties supercede the state at all levels, and those rights DO NOT COME from government, as human government is not the final authority. Adding another layer of government does not likely enhance the protection and recognition of inalienable rights that supercede the state, but more likely will define them as government privileges (i.e., rights as coming from government, which exist only if government is accepted as the final authority).

They're already implicitly considered government privileges by anyone who refers to "constitutional rights".

Nothing you've said here responds to FtA's question. It seems there is a disappointing level of understanding in this thread and at RPF in genera of what the constitution is, and how government operates.

[Peace&Freedom]

They're already implicitly considered government privileges by anyone who refers to "constitutional rights".

Nothing you've said here responds to FtA's question. It seems there is a disappointing level of understanding in this thread and at RPF in genera of what the constitution is, and how government operates.

People using the phrase are using short hand for "natural/inalienable rights" recognized by the Constitution. If the constitution did not recognize or protect those rights, or if NO constitution did, people would still have them. Most people here understand that principle, regardless of what a given shorthand implies. The question was responded to in that I did not accept the premise that case law (Supreme Court decrees), unratified treaties, or Legislative and Executive overreach (like Obamacare) has the same standing as the Constitution or original intent.

[kcchiefs6465]

Not that I am not preaching to the choir, but for those who may read this and not have known, the Constitution implies Natural Law but more importantly was based on Natural Law. Though the document has [reprehensible] faults, as most anything written by Man could, it is a great tool in rallying people to a common cause. The Constitution is the basis for many of my discussions with people; especially with republicans. It actually leads into the discussion of Natural Law and Rights that supersede any supposed authority Man claims to have. I like the document. Lord knows that even the façade of respecting the Constitution has kept certain untold tyrannies in check.