Here the answer
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s expected signing of the United
Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty has once again raised the question of whether
the terms of a treaty can take precedence over—even nullify—the rights
acknowledged and secured by the Constitution of the United States.
For decades, apostles of one-world government have endeavored to
convince the American people that treaties, rather than the
Constitution, embody the supreme law of the land. In 1952, Secretary of
State and Council on Foreign Relations member John Foster Dulles told the American Bar Association that “Treaty law can
override the Constitution.” “Treaties for example…can cut across the
rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.”
But the Supreme Court has more than once decided against the propaganda of the new world order crowd. In the landmark case Reid v Covert,
the Court ruled”…no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on
the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from
the restraints of the Constitution.” In short, as “[the Supreme] Court
has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution
over a treaty,” the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land,
and treaties may neither supplant nor amend it.
However, treaty articles have been willfully applied in the U.S.
regardless of constitutional requirements or Supreme Court decisions. A
century ago, Theodore Roosevelt signed and implemented the terms of a
treaty “..for two years before the Senate acted.” He later stated
that he “…would have continued it until the end of [his] term, if
necessary, without any action by Congress.” Roosevelt claimed, “the
Constitution did not explicitly give me power to bring about the
necessary agreement with Santo Domingo. But the Constitution did not
forbid my doing what I did.” (3)
Would a re-elected Obama follow Roosevelt’s example by pressing the
Arms Trade Treaty on the American public? Certainly, the Eric Holder Department of Justice would have no compunction about enforcing this latest of Obama’s unconstitutional schemes to undermine the 2nd Amendment.
And how could the combined might and authority of the executive branch
be prevented from exploiting the terms of this document in a federal
assault on the right to keep and bear arms?
The Reid Court
wrote that “…an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S.
Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other
federal law in conflict with the Constitution.” But if Barack Obama was
willing to inflict the unconstitutional terms of a treaty on the
American people, he would certainly be willing to ignore any Court
ruling that sought to prevent it.
Though Congress has the authority to nullify a treaty legislatively
and federal courts have the power to overturn any unconstitutional
terms, the American public has learned that neither of these
institutions can be trusted with the defense of the Constitution or the
rights it secures. Should Barack Obama win re-election, it will be up to
the people to defend their 2nd Amendment rights. And that could make for a very messy affair.
See Votes by State
News & Politics