listen here

Patriot Broadcast From the Trenches Schedule 

Or you can mail donations to Henry Shivley at P.O. Box 964, Chiloquin, OR 97624

The Constitution vs the UN Arms Treaty

The Constitution vs the UN Arms TreatyTenth Amendment Center – by Lesley Swann

Last week, Secretary of State John Kerry signed a UN arms treaty that opponents say will implement a broad firearms registration scheme and eventually lead to global bureaucrats imposing gun control on the American people in spite of the Second Amendment. Despite the Obama administration’s support for the treaty, it remains to be seen whether the Senate will ratify it.

The Obama administration and other supporters of the arms treaty will likely claim that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution places treaties above the Constitution and other U.S. laws as the supreme law of the land. Under this interpretation, they believe they can get around the Second Amendment protections on the right to keep and bear arms.  

What did the founders say?

The founders very clearly stated the conditions under which the U.S. Constitution could be amended, or changed in Article V. It is quite illogical to conclude that they would write such a brilliant document only to create a giant backdoor for foreign governments to come in and destroy the liberty they worked so hard to achieve. In fact, the founders themselves said otherwise.

“The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is that it shall not change the Constitution…” – Alexander Hamilton

“I do not conceive that power is given to the President or the Senate to dismember the empire, or alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority to have this power.” – James Madison

“I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treaty-making power to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson

Considering three of the most prominent founding fathers explicitly said that the Constitution does not permit the dismantling of itself via treaty, there must be some other meaning to the Supremacy Clause. By properly reading the clause it becomes clear that not only did the founders not leave a backdoor, they actually expressly forbade this type of maneuver in Article VI.

The answer to the riddle that confuses many people isn’t to be found in an indecipherable tome on constitutional law, but instead in simple English grammar and a little attention to detail.

This or The?

Throughout the text of the Constitution, whenever the document refers to itself the verbiage “this Constitution” is used. The only exception to this rule is the President’s Oath of Office, where the phrase “the Constitution of the United States” is used. In every other place where you find the word Constitution written in the Constitution itself, it is preceded by the word “this” making it unmistakeably clear that the Constitution is referring to itself. In the President’s Oath of Office the phrase “Constitution of the United States” makes it perfectly clear that the phrase is referring to this Constitution as well.

Yet here in the Supremacy Clause – used to justify treaty supremacy by some – the phrase “this Constitution” is not used in the final phrase. So, why is the word “this” not used here?

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Founders were very clear and precise with their use of language in the Constitution, so why do we have “the Constitution” in this case (“any Thing in THE Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”), and “this Constitution” in all other cases where the word is written? The simple answer is that in this case, they were not referring to the United States Constitution at all.

The Humble Prepositional Phrase

The humble preposition is the key to solving the intent of the Founders in this statement. A prepositional phrase – such as of, to, or in – is a word that can modify and indicate relationships. Prepositional phrases can also modify more than one object. In this case, the prepositional phrase “of any State” refers to both the words“Constitution” and “Laws” that precede the phrase.

This means that the final phrase of this clause could rightly be read to mean “any Thing in the Constitution of any State or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” The Founders weren’t saying that treaties were to be supreme over the U.S. Constitution, but that they could and would take precedence over the state constitutions and laws.

“In Pursuance Of…”

It is clear with a little analysis of the details of the language and grammar used to construct this clause that our Founders were placing treaty law in its rightful place – beneath the supreme law of the land in the form of our U.S. Constitution, but above the laws and constitutions of the states. There is no loophole that can allow international interests to trump the U.S. Constitution, but the treaty must be made in pursuance of our Constitution, just as all laws that Congress makes must be in pursuance of the Constitution.

While Barack Obama and John Kerry may claim that they can legislate via treaty, this clearly was not the intent of our Founders. Will this knowledge stop them from attempting to shred the Constitution and the Second Amendment by signing on to gun control treaties? Probably not. But we can rest firm in the knowledge that our Founders did not give the Federal government the power to usurp the Constitution by treaty, and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not treaty law.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/10/03/constitution-vs-un-arms-treaty/#.Uk18lYbbOSp

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.
944
Don't forget to answer the Security Question before you post comment.

2 Responses to The Constitution vs the UN Arms Treaty

  1. Bulldog says:

    A better title would be “My AR-15s, and many other weapons vs the UN Arms Treaty” :)

  2. Cal says:

    “The Obama administration and other supporters of the arms treaty will likely claim that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution places treaties above the Constitution and other U.S. laws as the supreme law of the land. ”

    Unfortunately Obama’s constitutional knowledge is severly lacking. First as a US president he had to *lawfully become a presidential candidate, meet the three (3) requirements to be a US president, and to be in “PURSUANCE THEREOF the US Constitution he must be doing the duties assigned to the executive branch in a CONSTIUTIONAL manner.

    First the US Constitution and all that is in PURSUANCE thereof it IS the supreme law of this land. That means that the federal government, any branch of it, is supreme ONLY when carrying out their constitutionally assigned duties in a constitutional manner. The states are supreme every time EXCEPT when the feds are carrying out their constitutionally assigned duties in a constitutional manner that conflict with the states encroaching upon federal duties as assigned by the US Constitution.

    That is correct, the USA has a duality of governments of which the federal is ONLY one – that has clearly and unlawfully overstepped its bounds – and where the federal governments duties are clearly listed (enumerated).

    Supremacy clause: Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution: “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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    Notice it does not mention that foreign nations or foreign entites are supreme here in the USA. It says the US Constitution and ALL laws made in Pursuance there of it shall be the supreme law. Only laws, treaties, that follow the US Constitution are lawful here.

    But the thing one must realize is that for decades the UN has been using a “backdoor” stealth policy to destroy the USA under the US Constitution and her people. It is called Agenda 21. That makes everything the UN does and all that support the UN and try to implement its polices here in the USA TREASON against the USA and her people.

    Obama has OPENLY supported Agenda 21, as has his adminstration – doing what they can to hasten its implementation here. Bush 1, Clinton’s, Bush 2 also openly supported and started implementing Agenda 21 which is treason on their and their adminstrations part. Also the military regimes working with those adminstrations, with Panetta and Dempsey OPENLY admitting before a senate hearing and Obama admitting in a letter to Boehner – that the only autherization needed was U.N. authorization – that they UN was given authority over the USA and the US Military – treason within the highest branches of our government.

    *Election Fraud is NOT lawful here in the USA: South Bend, Indiana JURY found that fraud put President Obama and Hillary Clinton on the presidential primary ballot in Indiana in the 2008 election. Plus the 2008 Democratic Nominating Committee (DNC) document did not include language stating that Obama was qualified to be a candidate. The 2008 Republican Nominating Committee (RNC) document did, as is normal. This shows that the DNC knew that Obama was not qualified, or why change the form?

    All US presidents msut have two US citizens as parents. Obama’s father was never a US citizen. And no, the courts have never decided that question – the US Constitution and the founding fathers were very clear that a person of divided loyalties could easily be a problem in the executive branch.

    Obama himself admitted to that in an October 2004 debate between Obama and Keyes where Obama self-admits that he is ineligible for the Oval Office after Keyes faulted Obama for not being a “natural born citizen”, to which Obama quickly retorted, “So what? I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency.” 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

What is 10 + 6 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-)