◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

In another triumph of politics hope over experience for the Obama administration, Secretary of State John Kerry signed the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in New York today. The treaty’s given next to zero chance of ratification in the Senate and the reaction to the Administration’s kabuki nod toward more gun control has been pretty much as you’d expect: “’This treaty is already dead in the water in the Senate, and they know it,’ said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services. ‘The Administration is wasting precious time trying to sign away our laws to the global community and unelected U.N. bureaucrats.’” . . .

In a letter he left in a flaming bag on the White House steps, Senator Bob Corker, ranking member of the Senate foreign relations committee, sent a Constitutional shot across the president’s bow, warning him against trying to enact any of the treaty’s provisions via executive fiat:

As you know, Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution requires the United States Senate to provide its advice and consent before a treaty becomes binding under United States law.  The Senate has not yet provided its advice and consent, and may not provide such consent.  As a result, the Executive Branch is not authorized to take any steps to implement the treaty.

Moreover, even after the Senate provides its advice and consent, certain treaties require changes to United States law in the form of legislation passed by both the House and Senate.  The ATT is such a treaty.  Various provisions of the ATT, including but not limited to those related to the regulation of imports and trade in conventional arms, require such implementing legislation and relate to matters exclusively reserved to Congress under our Constitution.

Because of the concerns discussed above, as well as the fundamental issues the ATT raises with respect to the individual rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, as the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it is my view that you may not take any executive action to implement this treaty, provisionally or otherwise, unless and until: (1) the United States Senate has provided its constitutionally required advice and consent to its ratification; and (2) the Congress has passed any and all required legislation to bring this treaty into effect under United States domestic law.

Pro-gun forces in the Senate should welcome this opportunity. With the 2014 mid-terms a little more than a year away, a roll-call vote – forcing “moderate” and swing-state Dems and squish GOPers to go on the record on internationally-mandated civilian disarmament – could only help the pro-2A cause and deal the Administration another very public gun control defeat. What’s not to like?

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

50 COMMENTS

    • The UN can’t do anything to anyone. The only real muscle that joke of an organization has is the US. I’m still hoping I live to see the day that those a holes all get floated out on a barge in the Atlantic and told never to return.

  2. Good.

    Obama signs an unenforceable treaty,on top of his previous disrespect of our constitution. More fuel for the fire.

    Better buy Fedex stock folks,cause in 2014 well be shipping some Democrats outta DC.

  3. Corksuckers….Put the word out via facebook, twitter and whatever else you can….this is one party’s war against the 2A and they will stop at nothing to accomplish their goals. Right now the obamacare fiasco is making all the news, this has to get out to more than just gun people.

  4. Near the end of the Vietnam War, Kerry testified against his country. He did severe damage to many loyal soldiers then. Now, history begins to repeat itself. He is given great power in the hierarchy he protested against. In true fashion he is not only doing damage to the same loyal soldiers he did before, but has added millions of Americans by siding with Obama and the United Nations and Putin. Whose order will it be to fire on Americans?!

    • That asshat has no business or right to be saluting anyone. He was a fraud and a coward in combat, and a traitor when he got home.

  8. Can there remain any doubt of the current administration’s desire to sell out the USA to foreign interests?

  9. Oh, John Kerry, you sly boots.

    Seriously, if you can’t sneak something past the Senate, you know, who plays video poker when they’re supposed to be listening, you have to be a special kind of dumbass.

  10. BO and his bitch JK can both go to hell.
    They should lined up and shot like all the other UN blue helmet dogs.

    Smitty

  11. don’t forget, it can be ratified LATER, under another Senate. Similar to the Cybercrime treaty signed in 2001, and ratified in 2006.

    That’s probably why they did it.

    • From now until eternity this will dangle over our heads. At any time in the future, the right combination of dip$hits in office could ratify this. Barack Hussein is dismantling this country one small piece at a time. This act is an opportunity for Barack Hussein to continue his agenda long after he’s gone.

    • As noted in the Senator’s letter, eve if by some impossible chance this treaty is ever ratified it will need to be implemented by Congress passing certain laws, every one of which will violate the Second Amendment. On the long chance those laws ever get passed they will be immediately challenged in federal court and unless a liberal president has a chance to stack the Supreme Court they will be overturned.

      When and if all of those things happen, and SCOTUS turns its back on the Constitution, then will the second revolution be triggered. Our job now is to fight in every possible legal way to prevent any of those things from occurring. The best chance is for conservatives to take back control of the government and at the earliest possible moment pass legislation declaring this treaty to be unconstitutional and not subject to further consideration by the Senate.

      By the way, while I have studied it, I am not a constitutional scholar. If the Constitution says the President can negotiate treaties, where does it say the Secretary of State is allowed to sign that treaty? Also, if one president can sign a treaty and present it to the Senate, isn’t there some provision for a different president to Un-sign/rescind that treaty before it has been ratified by the Senate? Inquiring minds want to know.

  12. It’s pretty mind blowing that our president was at one time not too long ago, paid to lecture law students on constitutional law.

    • He was paid to lecture students on The Constitution of the United States of America. I don’t believe there was anything in his contract that said he had to agree with the Constitution, which he obviously did not (per his own statements in a televised interview in Illinois), and does not.

    • TO: Thomas Paine
      RE: Why Kerry?

      Because Kerry just signs it ‘in the margin’. That starts the process for ratification.

      The Senate has to approve the treaty.

      And if they do, THEN Obama signs it and it becomes ‘Law’.

      Hope the helps….

      Regards,

      Chuck(le)
      [Be Prepared…..I suspect there’s a good chance that the proverbial ‘fix’ is in…..]

      P.S. And in order to get it fixed for sure….

      ….look for more massacres to spur on the pressure on the Senate to approve it.

  14. Let them come, let them try to take the guns.

    Watch them scurry as the hand of god isbrought down on them.

    Molan Labe.

    • The libs are bound and determined to destroy themselves, like the Republicans have in the past. Keep feeding them rope. 2014 is going to be a butt whooping.

      • You have a lot more faith in the electorate than I do. If the general
        population was capable of paying attention for more than 5 minutes
        many of the knuckleheads in government wouldn’t have even
        gotten on a ballot.

    • Actually RR did just as much damage, if not more to this country, and don’t forget who sent us down this socialist path in the first place, FDR who had none (Ass’t to SecNav)… Don’t think it relates to any military experience (real or perceived) but how easily they forget their shipmates or what they are supposed to be representing…

  16. This is not a war on the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution, it’s merely a battle in a much larger effort to destroy the United States of America. The Socialist’s goal is total “government” dominion over American lives. They understand the citizens must be disarmed first and that is why they keep hammering at our right to keep and bear arms. We the people are their greatest threat.

  17. Right after signing the treaty, he threw his medals in disgust on the white house lawn to protest war crimes being committed by US soldiers…oh wait, he already did that 40 years ago…never mind.

  19. TO: All
    RE: Well….

    …what can you expect from a traitor working for a bastard?

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  21. Unfortunately, by the time the second revolution happens we will be limited to knives and forks to resist with

Comments are closed.