Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

More of his sneaking and underhandedness.

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by U201491, Jun 5, 2010.

  1. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,857
    Likes Received:
    10,560
    He is trying.....................to undermine us all.

    Obama, with little fanfare, has urged passage of this dangerous treaty.
    Obama backs international gun control treaty
    Click here to read the entire report from the Heritage Foundation.
    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re...ntion-Is-Incompatible-with-American-Liberties

    The OAS Firearms Convention Is Incompatible with American Liberties

    by Theodore Bromund, Ray Walser, Ph.D. and David Kopel

    President Barack Obama has called on the Senate to ratify the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials. President Bill Clinton signed the convention in 1997, but neither he nor President George W. Bush sent it to the Senate for advice and consent for ratification. The convention, commonly known by its Spanish acronym CIFTA, was negotiated under the auspices of the Organization of American States (OAS).

    The convention poses serious prudential risks to liberties associated with the First and Second Amendments. Specifically, it seeks to criminalize a wide range of gun-related activities that are now legal in all states, and it would clash with the First Amendment's protection of free speech. It would also entitle foreign governments to legal assistance from U.S. authorities when pursuing extradition requests, including requests to arrest individuals exercising their First Amendment rights. These are serious prudential risks. Finally, it would create a chilling climate for the freedom of speech of foreign nationals both in the United States and in the Western Hemisphere as a whole.

    More broadly, the convention poses risks to American sovereignty. Because the convention has no enforcement mechanism, by ratifying it, the U.S. would impose one-sided obligations upon itself, thereby illegitimately constraining American governing institutions. In some cases, these obligations would be constitutionally unacceptable and could not be enforced. This would place the U.S. in the position of ratifying a treaty that it cannot entirely fulfill, creating an opening for critics to condemn the U.S. for failing to live up to its international obligations.

    The conflict between the U.S.'s treaty obligations and the Constitution would also be useful to domestic advocates who argue that the Constitution is a barrier to U.S. compliance with "international norms." Thus, the convention fits neatly into a broader transnationalist strategy to reduce the ability of the U.S. to govern itself through laws and institutions of its own making. By backing the convention, its advocates also advance the idea that the U.S. should act at the suggestion and under the guidance of other states and ultimately of the "international community."

    The defects in the convention are serious and pose prudential risks that cannot be remedied without a substantial number of U.S. reservations to the convention. It is particularly troubling that Harold Koh, a key Administration appointee, offered an unqualified endorsement of the convention before taking office and expressed doubt about the legal validity of reservations. While his criticism of the legality of reservations is baseless, the number and extent of the necessary reservations would be substantial and incompatible with the core of the convention. The U.S. can therefore neither properly ratify the convention with reservations nor safely ratify it without reservations.

    Furthermore, the convention is fundamentally an arms control treaty but is not being treated with the seriousness that should attend arms control agreements. This is dangerous, and the Senate should be wary of these problems if it considers the convention.

    Click here to read the entire report from the Heritage Foundation.
    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re...ntion-Is-Incompatible-with-American-Liberties
     
  2. Redcap

    Redcap Lewis County, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,990
    Likes Received:
    2,731
    Most treasonous president ever.
     
  3. cetme

    cetme oregon city Member

    Messages:
    474
    Likes Received:
    5
    when is this "CONVENTION" going to happen? honestly what would happen if this crap in any way comes true,are all of americas citizens going to let this actually be enforced,or lash out? ideas would be appreciated!
     
  4. A2theK

    A2theK Olympia Member

    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    6
    Yep right next to FDR!!

    On April 5, 1933, Roosevelt commanded all citizens to surrender their gold to the government. No citizen was permitted to own more than $100 in gold coins, except for rare coins with special value for collectors.


    I'm not a gold collector, but it's a good read

    http://jimbovard.com/blog/2006/12/06/the-great-gold-robbery/
     
  5. Decker

    Decker My house Active Member

    Messages:
    833
    Likes Received:
    110
    Sweet Lord...
     
  6. Trlsmn

    Trlsmn In Utero (Portland) Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,838
    Likes Received:
    1,186
    Is this really a story or is this just a rehash of the same old story from a year ago? I looked over the sources and can't find anything that says there is any new info here.
     
  7. cetme

    cetme oregon city Member

    Messages:
    474
    Likes Received:
    5
    ive been looking around a little and cant find any actual dates of any actions in congress or senate.is this a bit of propaganda?
     
  8. bcp

    bcp SW WA Member

    Messages:
    193
    Likes Received:
    2
    Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1(1957)
    United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty,"
     
  9. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5 Western OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    Likes Received:
    4,413
    There is nothing in The Constitution that guarantees you the right to:
    Build your own guns.
    Build your own ammunition.
    Buy the components to do either.
    Customize your guns.
    Prevent you from needing a license to do so. A license that may be tied to "no warrant" searches if you want to pursue those hobbies.

    The definition of "illicit" doesn't change, but the status of the above may if laws are passed that make it so. And there is nothing in The Constitution that those laws would violate.
    Be prepared to ask the people running for national office this fall about their support or objections to CIFTA. Particularly Senate candidates.
    As gun owners, we would all be foolish to ignore this threat.
     
  10. el gringo loco

    el gringo loco PDX Member

    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    6
    I find it interesting how many people are worried that President Obama might attempt to violate the Constitution with some fantastical conspiracy theory involving international treaties, but yet said nothing when the Bush administration actually violated the Constitution six ways to Sunday with the Patriot Act, warrant-less wiretaps, etc. Besides, if the USA can ignore the requirements of the Geneva Convention-a long standing treaty actually ratified by Congress-what makes you think we wouldn't just ignore this treaty, too?

    This issue seems to pop up every few weeks on this board and people get all fired up about it. Even if it were an impending threat to our 2nd Amendment rights, I can't see how Congress could ever come close to getting enough votes to ratify it, much less enforce any of its provisions. Second Amendment rights are a third rail in politics right now. That's why liberal Democrats talk a lot about gun control, but do nothing to actually advance the cause. They had way more people who would have supported single payer health care than they have that will support more gun control, and they didn't try to to pass that. Keep your powder dry for a real threat.
     
  11. Trlsmn

    Trlsmn In Utero (Portland) Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,838
    Likes Received:
    1,186
    Of course we don't like the things Bush did, just like we don't like the fact we didn't buy Microsoft stock at it's IPO, but it's all history now. Bush is gone and has ceased to be a factor today, tomorrow and the next day, it's all Obama now baby! You liberals need to worry about the future, the past cannot be changed, only the mistakes of the past can be changed and Bush is not the one to look to, to make that change! The past can only serve as an excuse for poor leadership!

    Winners lead, losers blame!
     
  12. smithmax

    smithmax here Member

    Messages:
    382
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trlsmn, this reeks of the same old e-mail that pops up every month or two. Too bad there isn't a way to keep these from showing up here all the time.
     
  13. 2zuks

    2zuks Dallas, Oregon Member

    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    2
    I see this crap about Bush signing the Patriot Act a lot. What is funny to me is that the left went silent when Obama extended the Patriot Act. All of the sudden the very little out of the liberal media was talking about how it really was necessary in todays world blah blah blah. I find it interesting how liberals opinions on issues change based on who is in control. lol.

    I don't know, I think we have to be proactive these days. I am not discounting anything.
     
  14. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,857
    Likes Received:
    10,560

    This is not quite the same old and keeping it under wraps benefits the anti..left.
    This time he is trying an end run and get this pushed through his typical back door routes. He is like a snake in a sewer.
    We better be very very vigilant on this one and all he does right now, as he knows his time is running out to get his agendas through. If you blink he will bite you right where it hurts most !
     
  15. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,857
    Likes Received:
    10,560
    He is trying an end run on this one now.
    Behind closed doors. Attempting to get his cohorts in the majority to agree ratify it. As I stated, like a snake in a sewer.
     
  16. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,857
    Likes Received:
    10,560


    The reason it keeps popping up is it a VERY REAL THREAT. He cowtowed to the Mex Pres on this issue and all in pushing it to fruition. Apathy is how we lose. Pay attention and keep it in check. a minor panic alarm keeps people on their toes and in this case, I think the concern is warranted. Do not turn a blind eye to this snake. Once done it is much harder to get undone !!!!
     
  17. Gunner3456

    Gunner3456 Salem Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,109
    Likes Received:
    835
    One more time. It takes a 2/3 vote of the Senate to ratify a treaty. That's 67 of the 100 senators. Ain't gonna happen.

    Even if it did, it could still be ruled unconstitutional by the SC.

    I think I'll go take a nap.
     
  18. dontreadonme

    dontreadonme SW Washington Member

    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    4
    OK, I'll grant you that it wouldn't come close to passing ... but that's how it starts: (1) Propose outrageous limits to our freedom, and cause a stir. (2) Keep doing it on a regular basis, as has been pointed out in the thread. (3) We become either cynical, lethargic, paranoid -- but in any case, the public discourse is out there and so ... (4) instead of an "outrageous" limit to freedom occuring, a "lesser" limit occurs. So, little by little, the 2nd Amendment gets chipped away at, until we're stuck with (at a minimum) the draconian restrictions that are ALREADY in place in the Land of Lincoln, American's Dairyland, and even the Golden State. I'll take paranoia over lethargy any day thank you ...

    Don't Tread on Me
     
  19. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,857
    Likes Received:
    10,560
    Well, keep your snake bite kit handy.
    He has not done anything proceedurally proper, ethical or by the rules siince he threw his name into the hat.
    You better believe he will try to end run this one also.
     
  20. ZachS

    ZachS Eugene/PDX Active Member

    Messages:
    1,119
    Likes Received:
    11
    Sure could, but it doesn't even need to be. Despite popular belief, treaties are on equal footing with all other federal laws and can be overruled in whole or in part by a run-of-the-mill act of Congress.

    This has been the law for 132 years.

    (Scroll down to "Page 124 U. S. 194" for the relevant holding.)



    There are plenty of other forums for sharing and discussing made-up conspiracy theories...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.