Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
UN Arms Trade Treaty can overide the 2ND admendment
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="71buickfreak" data-source="post: 1847281" data-attributes="member: 8373"><p>The vienna convention states very clearly that signing only signifies the intention to ratify the treaty in the state. If Hilary had the power to sign it and it be instant law, then that would be the case, but it isn't. This country by constitution requires all treaties be ratified, and therefore, the treaty would only go into effect if it is ratified, which it wouldn't be. In any case, no treaty can supplant our constitutional rights, as stated in our constitution. A treaty is not "like ammending the constitution", it is actually like signing and ratifying a treaty. You can break a treaty, you can't break an amendment without another amendment. Treaties are an agreement between states, not constitutional law No treaty can infringe upon the constitution. This is something that has caused other treaties to fail, such as the ICC (international Criminal Court), ratifying it and the US joining the ICC would supplant the SCOTUS as the supreme law of the land in the US, so it is unconstitutional by it's very existence in the US. The ATT could affect our ability to get foreign made weapons and ammunition, but it won't be ratified in this country, and it HAS TO BE RATIFIED in order to become law.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="71buickfreak, post: 1847281, member: 8373"] The vienna convention states very clearly that signing only signifies the intention to ratify the treaty in the state. If Hilary had the power to sign it and it be instant law, then that would be the case, but it isn't. This country by constitution requires all treaties be ratified, and therefore, the treaty would only go into effect if it is ratified, which it wouldn't be. In any case, no treaty can supplant our constitutional rights, as stated in our constitution. A treaty is not "like ammending the constitution", it is actually like signing and ratifying a treaty. You can break a treaty, you can't break an amendment without another amendment. Treaties are an agreement between states, not constitutional law No treaty can infringe upon the constitution. This is something that has caused other treaties to fail, such as the ICC (international Criminal Court), ratifying it and the US joining the ICC would supplant the SCOTUS as the supreme law of the land in the US, so it is unconstitutional by it's very existence in the US. The ATT could affect our ability to get foreign made weapons and ammunition, but it won't be ratified in this country, and it HAS TO BE RATIFIED in order to become law. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
UN Arms Trade Treaty can overide the 2ND admendment
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom