Cowboy Confessional

Can China take away your civil rights?

Such rhetorical inquiries sound absurd on the surface, but a new constitutional collision course is careening our way, one that pits the perverse perceptions of dictatorships, oligarchies and monarchies against you.

You just knew Hillary Clinton would be at that nexus.

International treaties have the ability to run roughshod over states rights, the power you and your neighbors normally possess to decided what is best in your state (for Texans this appears to be copious quantities of concealed carry permits and high-octane BBQ).  In 1920, the Supreme Court ruled that treaties could instantly expand Federal power without permission of the states (Missouri v. Holland).  This quaint case involved protecting birds who demonstrated bad manners by migrating across international borders without visas. Hunters in the Lower 48 legally shot the birds with enough frequency that measurably fewer fowl migrated back to other countries. The Supreme Court tied the “supremacy” clause of the Constitution to international agreements, and ever since, treaties trumped all state-level prerogatives.

However, this did not apply to the Bill of Rights or any other clause of the Constitution that addressed individual activities. No treaty could abrogate your right to speak freely, get a trial by jury, or prevent soldiers from being quartered in your home during time of peace (though I knew a gal who quartered innumerable soldiers, and they were very much at peace afterwards). In fact it was a Supreme Court case concerning a soldier that codified the concept that the same “supremacy” clause that gave treaties Federal power also allowed the Bill of Rights to trump treaties (Reid v. Covert).

So for those keeping score in their heads:

1. Treaties trump states’ rights and powers
2. Treaties do not trump enumerated rights and powers

Everything else is up for (executive power) grabs, which brings us nicely back to Hillary Clinton and her alleged boss, Barack Obama (between that pair I know who actually has a pair). Bubbling in international backwaters are a pair of gun control schemes that are fomented by treaty. Supporting propaganda proclaims that these treaties intend to halt trafficking of illicit or illegal arms, which shows precisely how little participant countries know about criminals and their ability to move goods. One such treaty (CIFTA), which is in force in many Latin American countries, sounds benign until you connect the required actions with the power of the Executive branch to execute. Federal licensing and registration of private firearms are forbidden at present in the United States, but a ratified CIFTA treaty would compel Barack Obama to implement such schemes (as if the boy needed motivation). According to the Supreme Court, these treaty provisions would trump Congressional concerns or any state-level resistance.

Worse yet would be one whopper of a treaty being crafted in the United Nations, assembled by such stalwarts of liberty as Russia, China and Pakistan. American organizations who have eavesdropping privileges assert that the treaty will at minimum force signatories to:

1. Register all firearms
2. Require micro-stamping
3. Destroy “surplus” ammunition on a set schedule
4. Register all firearms
5. Restrict all transfers of arms including between private individuals
6. And a whole lot of other madness

China might well be deciding if you can buy that spare hunting rifle from your Uncle Bob.

Which brings us back to Hillary, who most charitably can be described as a power mad nag (only someone insanely focused on wielding power would have put up with Billy’s recreational relationships with bulging bimbi). Reversing the position of previous administrations, Clinton announced that Obama’s cabal would work directly with the U.N.’s initiative, holding hands with Russia, China and Pakistan to bring their well established, freedom-focused and peace-generating regulatory system to America. In fact the U.N. is reportedly accelerating the process, hoping to have the treaty ready in 2012 instead of the originally projected 2014.

Maybe Russia, China and Pakistan also know Obama is a one term president.

The good news (what precious little bit can be extracted from international insensibility) is that the Senate has little appetite for gun control, be it home grown or imported. For a treaty to become law, a whopping 66 Senators need to be intoxicated enough to do things more foolish than normal. Nose counting indicates that at best there are 33 rabid gun control proponents in the Senate, and given how their herd was thinned in the Great Gun Control Debacle of 2000, odds are they will lay very low. Hillary and Barry can shovel all the international effluvium they like because the current composition of the Senate assures no such treaty will become law.

Tags:

This entry was posted by Guy Smith on Saturday, July 9th, 2011 at 12:01 pm and is filed under Constitution, International, Law, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.