Proposed OAS treaty

So long as one is willing to be "reasonable" and allow for "reasonable" gun restrictions, this battle will continue. One must draw a line in the sand and stand firm. I manage a chemical testing lab and we are told by the international accrediting body that the word SHALL anywhere in the documentation is an ABSOLUTE command. Please note the same language appears in the 2nd Amendment.

One must also realize the the government has no powers execpt those explicitly granted. There is no power by implication in the Constitution. If one still believes in implied powers that one has not read the delegated powers and clearly grasped their interrelationships.

Under the implied powers paradigm, the grant of power "to provide for the common Defence" in Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 1 would include the authority to raise armies, navies, and to use the Militia. The power is not that extensive and implies nothing. The power is the power to spend ONLY. Anyone who believes in the "implied powers paradigm" is implicitly making the claim that the Framers were too ignorant to create a proepr document. One should note that when using "implied powers" one is claiming the Framers were so stupid they duplicated the effort and placed unnecessary verbiage in the Constitution when the Framers THOUGHT that the power "to provide for the common Defence" didn't include having miltary forces. And so the Framers, being the ignorant men that they were, proceeded to include powers beyond the power "to provide for the common Defence" which delegated the individual powers of raising armies, providing and maintaining a navy, and dealing with the use of the Militia.

If this is not enough proof of a total lack of implication of powers, here is a second example. Article I, Section 8 also delegates to Congress the authority to "coin money". Anyone who believes in implied powers would immediately think that the power to coin money would include the power to regulate its value, but, DUH, those stupid Framers, they thought setting the value of the coins was not included so they delegated it separately. Stupid Framers. They just didn't know much, did they? The Constitutional powers are so tight and limited they make George's face contort on the dollar bill. Think: the government can coin money with one grant of power but WITHOUT the second grant of power the government can't even regulate the value.

There are no so blind as those who will not see.

Tiochfaidh ar la!

Oh, yes. I left off the fact that the government can only make treaties under the authority of the United States. What is the authority of the United States? It is the short list of delegated powers in the Constitution. If the power being exercised in signing a treaty is not delegated by the Constitution, then the treaty is unconstitutional and void on its face. The government cannot just sign ANYTHING it wants to sign. It can only legitimately agree to treaties involving things under its "authority", and authority strictly limited by the controlling document, the Constitution.

Tiochfaidh ar la!

Some what like a limited power of attorney

Nice

Next will be Bama trying to sign onto the proposed UN treaty.

I believe very little Bama says, but I beleive him 100% when he says he hasn't backed off the 'assault weapons ban" idea.

One Big Assed Mistake America is way too much of an understatement...

"The power is not that extensive and implies nothing. The power is the power to spend ONLY."

Sorry, not even close - you quit reading too soon. Read a bit further in Article 1 Section 8.


"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"


See also the Militia Act of 1792 (http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm) for the founder's VERY specific non spending related details, which I am SURE they found compatible with the limits of the Constitution. As a for instance, they could determine who was in the militia (able-bodied white males age 17-45). They could require said militia members to own guns and ammo (knapsack, swords, etc.). They could require the states to organize said militia into regiments, batteries, etc. and further require the states to provide officers for the militia.

It should be noted that current federal law reads quite similarly to the 1792 law at least for purposes of defining who the members of the militia are - see 10 USC 311. It has to so it can maintain the fiction that the "draft" is calling out the militia. With today's gun laws we are obviously very far away from the founder's intent.

Without doubt the founders were familiar with the writings of Andrew Fletcher on militias - they are a good place to start to get a period understanding of what militias are and why they are important. http://www.constitution.org/fletchr/fletchr.htm

I think it's clear that the 2nd Amendment was originally intended to protect ALL types of arms useful for warfare. I also think we must ban such things as chemical weapons and suitcase nukes (even though an individual can bear them). But the proper way of banning such things is not by the courts letting the legislature get away with ignoring the constitution, but by the method originally specified: amendment.

Regardless of the above however, I don't think it's reasonable to interpret the Constitution as granting no implied powers. The brief Constitution can't be expected to completely spell out all the federal government's reasonable powers to carry out its assigned authority in such a short document, not even for a federal government drastically more limited than today's. And I think that was understood by the framers and the public at the time.

Using the power to regulate the value of money as an example, it is implied that the federal government had the power to do that by some means which was left unspecified. Different means require more or less exercise of authority. It can't reasonably be argued that the only means that the feds can use to regulate the value of the coin is whatever method uses the tiniest possible exercise of authority. It is implied that the feds can use an efficient method that may exercise their authority beyond the bare minimum, but not to excess.

It probably was worked out with the aid of one of the false flag pro-gun groups.

Under the "treaty" home reloading of ammunition is squarely in the definition of "illicit manufacturing" and therefore would be per se banned.