U.N. treaty would kill 2nd Amendment

  • Thread starter Thread starter eightandsand
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Good for Bolton for speaking up about what really is going on here. This thing needs to be stopped in a hurry. Not to mention the U.S. needs to get out of the U.N. altogether anyhow.
 
gilliam said:
It would never pass the Senate.
Click to expand...
The only proper use of the word “never” is, “Liberals never give up.” They are like the surf pounding the shore. Eventually, they get what they want.
 
eightandsand said:
Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton gets it right for once saying the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

Link to article:

idahopress.com/opinion/columnists/columnist_one/u-n-treaty-would-kill-nd-amendment/article_4de8532a-d520-11e1-94f6-001a4bcf887a.html
Click to expand...
Treaties can’t bypass the constitutional restrictions on governmental power. Because the Supreme Court has recognized a general right to bear arms, they would just examine the treaty provisions as they would a normal law and see if it stands up to the Constitution. If it doesn’t, too bad for the treaty.
 
sedonaman said:
The only proper use of the word “never” is, “Liberals never give up.” They are like the surf pounding the shore. Eventually, they get what they want.
Click to expand...
As a practical matter, with the possible exception of the Senators from New York and California, any sitting Senator that voted to authorize such a treaty would go down to flaming defeat in his/her next election.
Not only would most Americans rise up against the abrogation of our Constitution by outsiders, organizations such as the NRA would go berserk against the perpetrators of such an infamy.
If, by some freak of nature, the UN Arms Treat was agreed upon by the Senate, I am sure that in the session following the next election the Treaty would not only be overturned, but impeachment and other legal proceedings against everyone concerned would ensue.
 
George_Stegmeir said:
As a practical matter, with the possible exception of the Senators from New York and California, any sitting Senator that voted to authorize such a treaty would go down to flaming defeat in his/her next election.
Not only would most Americans rise up against the abrogation of our Constitution by outsiders, organizations such as the NRA would go berserk against the perpetrators of such an infamy.
If, by some freak of nature, the UN Arms Treat was agreed upon by the Senate, I am sure that in the session following the next election the Treaty would not only be overturned, but impeachment and other legal proceedings against everyone concerned would ensue.
Click to expand...
You wouldn’t actually be able to impeach anybody because you need to be guilty of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” to be impeached.
 
George_Stegmeir said:
As a practical matter, with the possible exception of the Senators from New York and California, any sitting Senator that voted to authorize such a treaty would go down to flaming defeat in his/her next election.
Not only would most Americans rise up against the abrogation of our Constitution by outsiders, organizations such as the NRA would go berserk against the perpetrators of such an infamy.
If, by some freak of nature, the UN Arms Treat was agreed upon by the Senate, I am sure that in the session following the next election the Treaty would not only be overturned, but impeachment and other legal proceedings against everyone concerned would ensue.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I hear what you are saying, but impeachment is like treason: meaningless. 😦
 
The constitution says, “He [meaning the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; …”

Since it says “two thirds of the Senators present”, it could be less than 67. I imagine the minimum would be two thirds of a quorum. What’s a quorum for the senate?
 
sedonaman said:
The constitution says, “He [meaning the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; …”

Since it says “two thirds of the Senators present”, it could be less than 67. I imagine the minimum would be two thirds of a quorum. What’s a quorum for the senate?
Click to expand...
The quorum is 51, so it could hypothetically pass 34-17 in the senate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top