I am So Lucky That I found your blog and great articles. I will come to your blog often for finding new great articles from your blog.I am adding your rss feed in my reader Thank you…

So you can oppose the treaty on policy to your heart’s content. When you do so on constitutional grounds, though, you end up looking a little silly.

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. *** It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined ***

That isn’t dicta, and it’s not limited to the case at bar. That’s how you write binding case law.

You can oppose this treaty on policy grounds to your heart’s content. I’m just saying that as a constitutional matter, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. You look a little silly crying wolf about the 2nd Amd., frankly.

Go look at Reid v. Covert. And then Medellin

I have. I still do not support ratification of this treaty. It could open up more cans of worms than a torture memo release.

Covert was a special complex case that really did not change anything.

Medellin will stand until what, another case reverses that holding?

I appreciate the legal input. I have gotten a lot over the past few days. The core element is that there seems to not be any up side for the U.S. in this treaty. Therefore it should not even be considered.

CIFTA is what’s called, in the parlance of international law, a “non-self-executing” treaty. That means that even if the Senate ratifies it, it does not become domestic law enforceable in courts unless and until Congress passes some separate legislation enacting the treaty’s provisions.

What this means is that you have very little to worry about. To mean anything whatsoever to any of us, Congress would have to pass a law (not just ratify the treaty). Any law running afoul of the 2nd Amd. would be struck down in courts. You can’t do an end run around the Constitution with a treaty like this (or any treaty, really). So, no worries. Hugo Chavez is not coming for your guns.

I know a fair bit about the legal stuff at issue here, FWIW, so I can do my best to answer any questions you might have.

The Lou Dobbs video specifically says the treaty requires guns exported or imported be clearly marked with the name and place of manufacture and a system to trace those imported or exported firearms. American citizens can still buy legal guns, there is no restriction, and can still buy legal ammunition, to their heart’s content.

Sometimes I don’t understand the outrage when if you buy a car, a computer, a camera, etc., all have means to trace back to a manufacturer, to place sold and to a purchaser, confiscated or not. Plus we must obtain a license to drive, and no one confuses those with restrictions of rights or “control” on our rights.

I find it more outrageous that our government is routinely and indiscriminately reading our emails, listening to our phone conversations, prying into our personal records, etc., without due cause.

for a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism …[and] it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security…

Thus, those who do not follow the Constitution and try to write laws that are against our Constitution without following the rules for Amendments are those creating a revolution and We the People, who give our consent to those governing us, also has the Right to alter or to abolish it when it strays from its Constitutional mandate. This government leader, that a political party selected for us, refuses to honor our laws, castigates our Country in enemy countries, and bows to foreign potentate, does not represent the United States of America and has lost the privilege of representing our Constitution and Our People. All that needs to be done is to “provide new guards for our future security.”