A bit ghoulish....
You mean a binding international treaty like Kyoto? The one that most of the signatories are now ignoring (can you say "China" or "the EU"?) or getting ready to vote to violate (can you say "Canada"?)?
Yeah. That's the ticket. Rrriiiggghhhtttt.
Posted by: Letalis at April 24, 2007 06:14 PM
Can you say, "U.N. Charter?"
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.
COMPARE THAT with the VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES 1969.
SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES
Article 49 Fraud - If a State has been induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of another negotiating State, the State may invoke the fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.
Article 53 Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (“jus cogens”) - A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.
SECTION 3. TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF TREATIES
Article 60 Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach - (lengthy paragraph)
Article 62 Fundamental change of circumstances
Article 64 Emergence of a new peremptory norm of general international law (“jus cogens”)
Article 65 Procedure to be followed with respect to invalidity, termination, withdrawal from or suspension of the operation of a treaty.
Article 66 Procedures for judicial settlement, arbitration and conciliation
QUESTION: Did the United Nations breach its own Charter by initiated their "Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (UN Document A/CONF.192/15)?
QUESTION: Is the Second Amendment jus cogens in customary international law? If not, why not, and can it become jus cogens under Article 64 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties? I think it should, if it has not already become so. Doesn't the U.N.'s failure to reach a consensus on their Programme of Action last year establish a point of international law that the Second Amendment as, in fact, become jus cogens to which it becomes ergo omnes for the Member States of the United Nations?
COMMENTARY: If only the U.S. State Department would apply the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986 to the Second Amendment and shove it down the United Nations throats! But that would take backbone to stand up for our constitutional rights.
JUST MY OBSERVATION.
But that is why I am litigating the Second Amendment case in federal courts trying to drag the United Nations into federal court for breach of the U.N. Charter over the global gun control as violating the Genocide Convention.
HAMRICK v UNITED NATIONS, PRESIDENT BUSH, MICHAEL CHERTOFF Secretary of Homeland Security, Admiral Thad Allen, Commandant of the Coast Guard, et al. Case No. 1:06cv0044. Trial date is set for November 13, 2007 while Motion to Dismiss is still pending. I just filed an Emergency Motion to Deny the Motion to Dismiss based on the Virginia Tech Massacre as evidence proving gun control is a failure.
I also filed my Objection and my Addendum to my Objection to the U.N. letter to the Court claiming privileges and immunities. I will have to wait to see how the judge will rule.
I am am pushing my case without an attorney. I emailed Theodore Olson (form Solicitor General of the U.S. Department of Justice) about representing me pro bono or on a contingiency fee bases but it is to soon to expect a reply from him.
I am fighting the good fight for the Second Amendment and the NRA is nowhere to be seen.
Posted by: Don Hamrick at April 24, 2007 06:32 PM
If my case beats the Motion to Dimiss I will be going to trial at the U.S. District Court in Batesville, Arkansas.
Remember! UNITED STATES v. MILLER began at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith. My case is in the Eastern District of Arkansas.
My case has the potential to overturn MILLER because I am pushing for National Open Carry Handgun (inclusive of concealed carry) as a matter of right and NOT as a matter of privilege in a fraudulent licensing scheme promoted by the NRA's National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry.
That is pretty much why the NRA refuses to help my case. But I keep telling them to forget about their pet agenda and take up the greater cause for the Second Amendment: National Open Carry!
Posted by: Don Hamrick at April 24, 2007 06:45 PM
Dude, you are batshit insane.
Posted by: Jim W at April 25, 2007 01:18 AM
If anyone was in any doubt that the UN small arms treaty is intended to disarm us, that doubt must now be removed.
All it takes is a short press realease to undo all their previous weasel words on the matter. Thank heavens for John Bolton.
Posted by: Earl Harding at April 25, 2007 08:40 AM
I'm not sure that such a treaty would meet Constitutional muster. I'm not a lawyer, but there appears to be some existing case law:
In the case of Geoffroy v. Riggs (133 U.S. 258, 1890) the Court stated: It would not be contended that it (the treaty power) extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the Government or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.
In Reid v. Covert (354 U.S. 1, 1957) the Court stated:
[No] agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.
[There] is nothing in [the supremacy clause] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.
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….”
There are other cases, dating back to 1836.
Posted by: Dave at April 25, 2007 09:15 AM