We are in the battle for not only the survival of our natural rights and the republic, which it stands. We are now entering the phase of fighting for our very survival to exist as human beings. Tyrants like to declare themselves Gods of this earth holding the power of life and death in their hands. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the government's power over the states and the individual. Now we have an out of control Chief executive in the White House looking for a way to disarm the American people with the UN Small arms treaty.
One of the safeguards to ensure we are protected from a tyrannical government is the second amendment in the Bill of Rights. These amendments were adopted by congress to assure the remaining colonies who refused to ratify the Constitution; they wanted provisions to restrain the power of the Federal government. Ever since the ratification of the US Constitution, our liberties have been attacked from the beginning. The Anti Federalist has written their objections about the flaws in the US Constitution, explaining how over time how the government will go bad. Reading what they said, it has happened.
The Constitution gives the President the power to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate. In Article 2, section 2:
The president, by and with the consent of the senate, is to make treaties provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...
In Article 6, Section 2 that can be a loose cannon trampling over our liberties as stated:
all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
What is more of an abomination to our representative form of government is the 16th and 17th amendments that were declared ratified but was not, According the Book " The Law That Never Was" . The author traveled nationwide searching the archives in various states. Three fourths never ratified the proposed amendments. The 17th is the worst of both in my opinion because the US Senators were appointed by the State legislature before 1913. Now senators are elected by popular vote of the people and not by the State Legislatures. The US Senator was an ambassador of the State government sent to a neutral place called Washington DC, which was considered a foreign territory. The 17th amendment took away the state government's representation in Washington DC. US Senators today are now beholden to special interest and not the people of their respective states. This why our right to keep and bear arms is being threatened because of the disconnect between the US Senators and the people
The writer of Anti Federalist number 75 has seen this perfect storm allowing the President and the Senate in on ratifying treaties leaving the House of Representatives out of the loop. The writer says so eloquently:
And from this power of making treaties, the house of representatives, which has the best chance of possessing virtue, and public confidence, is entirely excluded. Indeed, I see nothing to hinder the president and senate, at a convenient crisis, to declare themselves hereditary and supreme, and the lower house altogether useless, and to abolish what shadow of the state constitutions remain by this power alone; and as the president and senate have all that influence which arises from the creating and appointing of all offices and officers, who can doubt but at a proper occasion they will succeed in such an attempt?
That is profound to hear, how many international agreements do we hear about that are carried out that have not been ratified by the Senate and the people' house is left outside the loop any recourse? The writer of the Anti Federalist 75 continues saying:
And who can doubt but that men will arise who will attempt it? Will the doing so be a more flagrant breach of trust, or a greater degree of violence and perfidy, than has already been practiced in order to introduce the proposed plan? . . . Of the same kind, and full as inconsistent and dangerous, is the first clause of the second article, compared with the second clause of the second section. We first find the president fully and absolutely vested with the executive power, and presently we find the most important and most influential portion of the executive power - e.g., the appointment of all officers - vested in the senate, with whom the president only acts as a nominating member. It is on this account that I have said above, that the greatest degree of virtue may be expected in the house of representatives; for if any considerable part of the executive power be joined with the legislature, it will as surely corrupt that branch with which it is combined, as poison will the human body. Therefore, though the small house of representatives will consist of the natural aristocracy of the country, as well as the senate, yet not being dangerously combined with the executive branch, it has not such certain influential inducements to corruption. . .
The flaw in the treaty making process under our present day constitution leaves the ratification of treaties to the Senate and the President, the people's house is left out not having any say. Two thirds of both houses and the Senate should be able to ratify a treaty, not just the Senate. In a way we are beyond that. Obama could by the executive pen say the treaty is ratified without two thirds concurring in the Senate.
There is another term ignored in the Constitution, they all see treaties being law of the land and say that is it regardless of what the legal document really says. They ignore four words of "to the contrary notwithstanding" meaning the treaty cannot violate our bill of rights or our representative form of government. So shall not be infringed means the UN Small Arms Treaty should be defeated because it withstands our Bill of Rights. It takes away a right secured by the second amendment if we allow it.
The right to self-defense, to keep and bear arms is a natural right that is God given. Just because Obama and Hillary Clinton agreed to this treaty that is unconstitutional at its worst. Ratified or not, let them try to enforce it here. We are the final check on tyranny if we are armed. This treaty takes away the final check on government power if we allow them to get away with it. It is up to us to be the final authority, or be slaves. It is our choice or exists at the mercy of tyrants. Jesus said, "Blessed are the Peacemakers". The UN small arms treaty is not a peacemaker, My Colt 45 on my hip is the real peacemaker necessary for the security of a free state. What do you think?
One of the safeguards to ensure we are protected from a tyrannical government is the second amendment in the Bill of Rights. These amendments were adopted by congress to assure the remaining colonies who refused to ratify the Constitution; they wanted provisions to restrain the power of the Federal government. Ever since the ratification of the US Constitution, our liberties have been attacked from the beginning. The Anti Federalist has written their objections about the flaws in the US Constitution, explaining how over time how the government will go bad. Reading what they said, it has happened.
The Constitution gives the President the power to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate. In Article 2, section 2:
The president, by and with the consent of the senate, is to make treaties provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...
In Article 6, Section 2 that can be a loose cannon trampling over our liberties as stated:
all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
What is more of an abomination to our representative form of government is the 16th and 17th amendments that were declared ratified but was not, According the Book " The Law That Never Was" . The author traveled nationwide searching the archives in various states. Three fourths never ratified the proposed amendments. The 17th is the worst of both in my opinion because the US Senators were appointed by the State legislature before 1913. Now senators are elected by popular vote of the people and not by the State Legislatures. The US Senator was an ambassador of the State government sent to a neutral place called Washington DC, which was considered a foreign territory. The 17th amendment took away the state government's representation in Washington DC. US Senators today are now beholden to special interest and not the people of their respective states. This why our right to keep and bear arms is being threatened because of the disconnect between the US Senators and the people
The writer of Anti Federalist number 75 has seen this perfect storm allowing the President and the Senate in on ratifying treaties leaving the House of Representatives out of the loop. The writer says so eloquently:
And from this power of making treaties, the house of representatives, which has the best chance of possessing virtue, and public confidence, is entirely excluded. Indeed, I see nothing to hinder the president and senate, at a convenient crisis, to declare themselves hereditary and supreme, and the lower house altogether useless, and to abolish what shadow of the state constitutions remain by this power alone; and as the president and senate have all that influence which arises from the creating and appointing of all offices and officers, who can doubt but at a proper occasion they will succeed in such an attempt?
That is profound to hear, how many international agreements do we hear about that are carried out that have not been ratified by the Senate and the people' house is left outside the loop any recourse? The writer of the Anti Federalist 75 continues saying:
And who can doubt but that men will arise who will attempt it? Will the doing so be a more flagrant breach of trust, or a greater degree of violence and perfidy, than has already been practiced in order to introduce the proposed plan? . . . Of the same kind, and full as inconsistent and dangerous, is the first clause of the second article, compared with the second clause of the second section. We first find the president fully and absolutely vested with the executive power, and presently we find the most important and most influential portion of the executive power - e.g., the appointment of all officers - vested in the senate, with whom the president only acts as a nominating member. It is on this account that I have said above, that the greatest degree of virtue may be expected in the house of representatives; for if any considerable part of the executive power be joined with the legislature, it will as surely corrupt that branch with which it is combined, as poison will the human body. Therefore, though the small house of representatives will consist of the natural aristocracy of the country, as well as the senate, yet not being dangerously combined with the executive branch, it has not such certain influential inducements to corruption. . .
The flaw in the treaty making process under our present day constitution leaves the ratification of treaties to the Senate and the President, the people's house is left out not having any say. Two thirds of both houses and the Senate should be able to ratify a treaty, not just the Senate. In a way we are beyond that. Obama could by the executive pen say the treaty is ratified without two thirds concurring in the Senate.
There is another term ignored in the Constitution, they all see treaties being law of the land and say that is it regardless of what the legal document really says. They ignore four words of "to the contrary notwithstanding" meaning the treaty cannot violate our bill of rights or our representative form of government. So shall not be infringed means the UN Small Arms Treaty should be defeated because it withstands our Bill of Rights. It takes away a right secured by the second amendment if we allow it.
The right to self-defense, to keep and bear arms is a natural right that is God given. Just because Obama and Hillary Clinton agreed to this treaty that is unconstitutional at its worst. Ratified or not, let them try to enforce it here. We are the final check on tyranny if we are armed. This treaty takes away the final check on government power if we allow them to get away with it. It is up to us to be the final authority, or be slaves. It is our choice or exists at the mercy of tyrants. Jesus said, "Blessed are the Peacemakers". The UN small arms treaty is not a peacemaker, My Colt 45 on my hip is the real peacemaker necessary for the security of a free state. What do you think?
You have to use the right! Otherwise what good is it!
ReplyDeleteOne of the founding fathers, I forget which one, said something to the effect, "The beauty of the second amendment is that it's not necessary until they try to revoke it."
ReplyDeleteThe treaty-making powers are described in the articles of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the Bill of Rights -- which are AMENDMENTS to the articles of the Constitution -- came afterward, and therefore, I would argue, supercede any limitations on those rights expressed or implied in the earlier articles.
sj