SCALLYWAG: Kerry to Sign UN Arms Treaty, Our Bill of Rights Be Damned

SCALLYWAG: Kerry to Sign UN Arms Treaty, Our Bill of Rights Be Damned

By Clash Daily / 25 September 2013


Secretary of State John Kerry plans to sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation on Wednesday, a senior State Department official told Fox News — despite warnings from lawmakers that the Senate will not ratify the agreement.
A State official said the treaty would “reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes,” while protecting gun rights.
“The treaty builds on decades of cooperative efforts to stem the international, illegal, and illicit trade in conventional weapons that benefits terrorists and rogue agents,” the official said.
U.S. lawmakers, though, have long claimed that the treaty could lead to new gun control measures. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the most vocal opponents of the treaty, sent a letter to Kerry declaring it “dead in the water,” since a majority of senators has gone on record against the agreement.
“The administration is wasting precious time trying to sign away our laws to the global community and unelected U.N. bureaucrats,” he wrote.

Read more: foxnews.com


Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2013/09/scallywag-kerry-sign-un-arms-treaty-bill-rights-damned/#W16IGJbDp8HtYwPJ.99

The Senate won’t ratify the UN’s arms control treaty, but John Kerry is going to sign it anyway

Posted on September 25, 2013 by Cowboy Byte
http://cowboybyte.wpengine.netdna-cd...13/09/john.jpg
Obama administration officials already signaled that they have every intention of ignoring the wishes and demands of the legislature on this one earlier this year, but the now infamous United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty is finally just about finished after years of political meandering and John Kerry is all set to put his pen to paper. Via Fox News:
Secretary of State John Kerry plans to sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation on Wednesday, a senior State Department official told Fox News — despite warnings from lawmakers that the Senate will not ratify the agreement.



A State official said the treaty would “reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes,” while protecting gun rights.
“The treaty builds on decades of cooperative efforts to stem the international, illegal, and illicit trade in conventional weapons that benefits terrorists and rogue agents,” the official said. …
What impact the treaty will have in curbing the estimated $60 billion global arms trade remains to be seen. The U.N. treaty will take effect after 50 countries ratify it, and a lot will depend on which ones ratify and which ones don’t, and how stringently it is implemented.

Continue Reading on hotair.com

Read more at http://cowboybyte.com/24795/the-sena...FGiOK52oxwT.99

Kerry signs UN arms treaty, senators threaten to block it

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement.
As he signed the document, Kerry called the treaty a “significant step” in addressing illegal gun sales, while claiming it would also protect gun rights.
“This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors. This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes. This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong,” he said. “This treaty will not diminish anyone’s freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes.”

Post Continues on www.foxnews.com

Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/2013/09/ker...ymXXuCrQAXU.99

Thursday, 26 September 2013 13:11 Attn John Kerry: Treaties Violating the Constitution Are Not Law of the Land

Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.





http://thenewamerican.com/media/k2/i...200e0897_M.jpg
On the morning of September 25, Secretary of State John Kerry, on behalf of President Barack Obama, signed the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty.

This treaty purports to disarm civilians and consolidate control of all weapons and ammunition in the hands of the United Nations and its approved member states.
While it is undeniable that the president and many in Congress are anxious to surrender our sovereignty to the global bureaucracy and to force Americans to hand over their guns, there are many lawmakers, particularly in the Senate, who have said they will never vote to ratify the gun grab, as would be required by the Constitution. In fact, by a vote of 53-46, in March, the Senate passed an amendment to the budget bill sponsored by Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) stating as much.
“We’re negotiating a treaty that cedes our authority to have trade agreements with our allies in terms of trading arms,” Inhofe before the vote on his amendment. “This is probably the last time this year that you’ll be able to vote for your Second Amendment rights.”
According to a story in The Hill, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) proposed his own amendment “that clarified that under current U.S. law, treaties don’t trump the Constitution and that the United States should not agree to any arms treaty that violates the Second Amendment rights.” Leahy’s amendment also passed.
A resolution of similar intent sponsored by Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) is currently pending before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Moran’s measure declares that it is the sense of Congress that:
the President should not sign the Arms Trade Treaty, and that, if he transmits the treaty with his signature to the Senate, the Senate should not ratify the Arms Trade Treaty; and
until the Arms Trade Treaty has been signed by the President, received the advice and consent of the Senate, and has been the subject of implementing legislation by Congress, no Federal funds should be appropriated or authorized to implement the Arms Trade Treaty, or any similar agreement, or to conduct activities relevant to the Arms Trade Treaty, or any similar agreement.
Representative Mike Kelly (R-Penn.) has offered a companion measure in the House of Representatives.
Both the Moran and Kelly resolutions declare that the Arms Trade Treaty “poses significant risks to the national security, foreign policy, and economic interests of the United States as well as to the constitutional rights of United States citizens and United States sovereignty.”
The measures also point out that UN gun grab “fails to expressly recognize the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms and the individual right of personal self-defense, as well as the legitimacy of hunting, sports shooting, and other lawful activities pertaining to the private ownership of firearms and related materials, and thus risks infringing on freedoms protected by the Second Amendment.”
Regardless of presidential fervor for the disarmament of law-abiding Americans or the number of votes he and his backers can buy in the Senate, no treaty that violates the Constitution could ever become the law of the land.
When it comes to treaties — or any act passed by Congress for that matter — the analysis must begin by looking within the four corners of the Constitution.
It only makes sense that the federal government cannot enter into a treaty that would contravene the Constitution. If I tell my teenage son that he can drive my car to the movies, does that give him permission to drive it into a lake?
To put a finer point on it, Article VI of the Constitution 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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
That means that in order to have any lawful effect, the object of any treaty signed by the president and ratified by the Senate must lay within their constitutional authority ("the authority of the United States").
In the case of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty, there is no doubt that many of its key provisions directly violate the Second Amendment’s prohibition on government infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
If the Congress and president were to disregard these restrictions on their power as they so often do, the mandates of the resulting treaty would not be the law of land, as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 33:
If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed.... But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. [Emphasis in original.]
Thomas Jefferson echoed that point specifically as it pertains to the topic of treaties. Jefferson wrote, “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.”
At another time, he reiterated this principle of constitutional construction, saying, “Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.
In a letter to his colleague, collaborator, and friend, James Madison, Jefferson agreed that “the objects on which the President and Senate may exclusively act by treaty are much reduced” by application of the principle that a treaty cannot contradict the Constitution and yet still enjoy the approval of that document. Again, my son couldn’t justify crashing my car into a lake by pointing to my permission to drive it to the movies.
Finally, a word of caution.
Although in reality, as proved above, treaties that violate the Constitution are prima facie null, void, of no legal effect, the Supreme Court has come down on both sides of the supremacy issue.
In a pair of contradictory decisions, the Supreme Court has held that “No doubt the great body of private relations usually fall within the control of the State, but a treaty may override its power” (Missouri v. Holland) and “constitutional rights cannot be eliminated by a treaty” (Reid v. Covert).
This conflict of cases creates a situation where, as Alan Korwin wrote in 2012 at the time of the previous round of negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty, “While some of us would surely and boldly draw the lines where they are ‘supposed’ to be, i.e., in line with our natural and historic rights, the forces aligned against the Second Amendment have no problem arguing vigorously for its destruction, regardless of any of these details, and therein lies the greatest threat we face.”
In light of this duplicity on the part of the Supreme Court and that body’s habit of usurping legislation authority, when it comes to preserving the right to keep and bear arms, the states and the people will be required to uphold the liberties protected by our Constitution in the face of federal collusion with the international forces of civilian disarmament.

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, and the surveillance state. He is the host of The New American Review radio show that is simulcast on Youtube every Monday. He can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/16621-attn-john-kerry-treaties-violating-the-constitution-are-not-law-of-the-land


What part of treasonous action don't you get, Mr Traitor, there will be no abiding by your signature you don't work for US!!!!!

Read my Lips....

Quote:

---

Attn John Kerry: Treaties Violating the Constitution Are Not Law of the Land

---

You can stick your pen where the sun don't shine, probably take it to the bank too!!!!

http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/t...mages/logo.png
Senate Website Says Second Amendment Unclear: Rights May Be “Collective”…

http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/u...17cd89-big.jpg
The Supreme Court begs to differ.

Via Washington Times:

The Senate’s official website page on the Constitution says the Second Amendment right to bear arms could be a collective right, not an individual freedom.
The website explains the Second Amendment this way: “Whether this provision protects the individual’s right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated.”

The Bill of Rights, however, was the Founding Father’s way of guaranteeing each and every individual their “unalienable rights,” as “endowed” by God. On top of that, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled — at least twice in the past five years — that the Second Amendment is an individual right, Breitbart reported.


In 2008, the court ruled on District of Columbia v. Heller and found that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”

http://weaselzippers.us/2013/09/26/s...be-collective/


They keep trying to screw with the Bill of Rights, The Constitution, and every thing and anything they can to destroy our freedoms. We must remain vigilant in every treasonous action they attempt!!!

John Kerry signed it, but now it has to pass the senate. ANYONE who votes for it should be fired. Agree?


https://scontent-b-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/...71177282_n.jpg

http://tag.admeld.com/id?redirect=ht...eld_user_id%5d




U.N. Arms Treaty Everything Obama Wanted… Except Being Law

Written on Thursday, September 26, 2013 by Max McGuire


The old adage goes that if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. With set-backs at the state and federal levels, it is not surprising that the Obama administration would dejectedly turn to an international treaty to push its gun control agenda. In a speech following the recent Washington Navy Yard Shooting, President Obama castigated Republicans for opposing his agenda. “As long as there are those who fight to make it as easy as possible for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun,” the President proclaimed, “then we’ve got to work as hard as possible for the sake of our children.” It is unfortunate to hear such hateful rhetoric, usually reserved to pundits, coming out of the Commander-in-Chief’s mouth. This quote is especially important in the context of the administration signing of the United Nations Arms Treaty.

The United States’ Constitution was deliberately designed to spread governmental power across the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to limit the capacity for tyranny. While a strong executive was recognized as essential, this authority was to be balanced by the judiciary and legislature. Even though the president was to be elected through the Electoral College, the importance of popular opinion was not lost on our nation’s founders. James Madison wrote that for liberty, “it is particularly essential that the [Congress] should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with the People.” That is why, even with all the enumerated executive powers, the Congress is still given authority over issues like declarations of war, taxation, and the ratification of treaties.
The Constitution is the first document of its kind to recognize that governmental power is derived from the consent of the governed. Rather than impose restrictions on the populace, the United States Constitution deliberately limits what the government is authorized to do. This focus on enumerated powers is uniquely American and evolved from the Eighteenth Century American experience. It is the same document that specifically outlaws the quartering of soldiers in private homes, something that in any other country would probably go without saying.

Despite being a self-proclaimed “constitutional scholar,” President Obama has proven to possess ignorance and antipathy towards Congress’s enumerated oversight capacity. From his executive orders on Gun Control, to his rewriting of the employer mandate within Affordable Care Act, to him pledging to wage war on Syria without Congressional approval, the last five years provide a plethora of examples of the President’s contempt for Congress.

This track record, however, pales in comparison to the administration’s signing of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
Article II, Section 2 of the constitution holds that the President “shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” In Federalist #64, John Jay writes that it is important “not only that the power of making treaties should be committed to able and honest men, but also that they should continue in place a sufficient time to become perfectly acquainted with our national concerns.” While the House of Representatives may better read the pulse of popular opinion, the founders chose to give the power of treaty ratification to the longer-tenured Senate in order to “obviate the inconvenience of periodically transferring those great affairs entirely to new men.”

On March 23, 2013, the U.S. Senate voted 53-46 to oppose ratifying the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. This marked just another set-back in the Obama administration’s push for gun control. The treaty still has a zero percent chance of gaining the two-thirds vote necessary to become law. To borrow a phrase used so often by Democratic leadership, the treaty is “dead on arrival” when it reaches the Senate. Any attempt to enforce it domestically without the Senate’s approval would be a violation of the oath of office and an impeachable offense.

On face value, it would seem this fight would be over. Without a super-majority in the Senate, this arms treaty cannot legally become U.S. law. But the administration signing it anyway proves a hatred of the constitution that has long been suspected ever since Obama chastised Pennsylvania voters in 2008 for ‘clinging to their guns and religion.’

In addition to outlawing the illicit transfer of battle tanks and combat aircraft, the treaty also prohibits the sale of small arms if there is any belief that they could be used in “attacks directed against civilian objects.” While the stated goal is to prevent genocide and war crimes, it also explicitly prohibits the export of firearms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals. There is no doubt that the United States has suffered recently from a string of shootings against schools and other soft targets. Based on the language of the U.N. Arms Treaty, that could give foreign governments enough cause to cease exporting weapons and ammunition to the United States. Who knows, maybe some international actor would attempt to impose gun control on the United States for our own good. When examined alongside Obama’s recent executive order to restrict the re-importation of antique firearms, it is clear that the President’s solution to gun violence is to simply reduce the number of firearms available.

In the President’s own words, anyone who opposes this strategy is deliberately trying to arm dangerous individuals. But the administration is not just trying to disarm dangerous individuals. The Democrats’ dragnet gun control strategy is to disarm everyone, because according to them all armed citizens are potentially dangerous. Every criminal is a law-abiding citizen until he or she chooses not to be. Universal background checks are not about targeting criminals. Even the strictest background check cannot stop criminals from using straw purchasers. New proposed gun control regulations are about expanding the number of disqualifiers in order to disarm ‘potential criminals’ (read: everyone). Gun control advocates are pushing for new mental health checks for gun ownership, yet no one is mentioning the utter objectivity of labeling someone mentally deficient. Navy Yard Shooter Aaron Alexis’ history of firearm arrests, but no convictions, has led gun control advocates to propose that people are guilty until proven innocent and that the mere suspicion of a crime should result in a loss of liberty. And on a global level, we are being told that the capacity of a firearm to forcefully discharge a projectile makes gun owners potential genocidaires.

Let that sink in. If you own a firearm, not only are you apparently a threat to our nation’s innocent children, but you also pose a grave threat to the world’s ethno-religious minority communities.

Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/articles/u-n-arms-treaty-everything-obama-wanted-except-law/#AM3hFztCACzZMB5m.99

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/u...8073890735.jpg

Hey Prez read my lips

Actual 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”