In United States v Bond, The Supreme Court Could Be Ruling On The Safety Of All American Rights

0 Shares
treaties

On more than one occasion President Barack Obama or a top Administration official has lamented that the Commander in Chief is not a king or a dictator and is, therefore, unable to ram his progressive policies down the greater American public’s collective throat as quickly as his liberal supporters would like. And on several occasions, the sole hurdle halting the President in his dash toward liberal utopia—or totalitarian hell, depending on whom you ask — has been a pesky 226-year-old document called the Constitution of the United States of America.

But the Obama Justice Department is working to change that.

Attorneys at the Justice Department are currently working to advance a Supreme Court argument that the Federal government should be allowed to invoke international treaties as legal basis for policies that government officials are unable to put into place because they conflict with the Nation’s Constitution.

The Supreme Court is slated to begin hearing oral arguments in United States v Bond early next month — a case in which the court will determine, according to SCOTUSblog:

(1)    Whether the Constitution’s structural limits on Federal authority impose any constraints on the scope of Congress’ authority to enact legislation to implement a valid treaty, at least in circumstances where the Federal statute, as applied, goes far beyond the scope of the treaty, intrudes on traditional state prerogatives, and is concededly unnecessary to satisfy the government’s treaty obligations; and (2) whether the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, 18 U.S.C. § 229, can be interpreted not to reach ordinary poisoning cases, which have been adequately handled by state and local authorities since the Framing, in order to avoid the difficult Constitutional questions involving the scope of and continuing vitality of this Court’s decision in Missouri v Holland.

In short, United States v Bond concerns a woman poisoning her husband’s mistress and, in doing so, violating the international ban on chemical weapons. Per the Constitution, the woman should be prosecuted at the State level — but the Federal government prosecuted her under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

That is the same Act that Syrian Dictator Bashir al-Assad is a accused of violating and is the justification that many war-hungry politicians recently used as basis for a military attack on the Syrian government.

The Constitutional question is whether the Federal government can use treaties that Congress has ratified as Federal policy.

A 1920 Supreme Court ruling in Missouri v Holland upheld a treaty requiring the Federal government to enact laws regulating migratory birds after a similar statute was deemed unConstitutional in a lower court. At the time, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued that treaty power extends beyond Congress’s regular lawmaking clout.

During a speech at the Heritage Foundation this week, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) explained the danger in accepting the Justice Department’s argument that international treaties and Federal policy are intertwined in domestic matters.

“If the broad interpretation of the Missouri v Holland snippet is accurate … you now have a roadmap – if you find the limitations on the Federal government’s authority irksome, any President has a simple path to get around it,” Cruz said. “Find any nation in the world, negotiate a treaty agreeing to do what you couldn’t do otherwise, and if the Senate ratifies it – and by the way that means you can cut the House of Representatives out of everything – then suddenly the Federal government has authority it didn’t have before.

“That is a radical interpretation of the treaty power. That is what is at issue in Bond: does the treaty power enable the Federal government to circumvent the structural limitations on the authority of the Federal government?” Cruz continued.

If that is the case, the Senator surmised that the President could even go so far as signing a treaty giving away any American rights protected by the Constitution.

“The proposition that the Treaty Clause is a trump card that defeats all of the remaining structural limitations on the Federal government is not a proposition that is logically defensible,” Cruz said.

Personal Liberty

Sam Rolley

Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After covering community news and politics, Rolley took a position at Personal Liberty Media Group where could better hone his focus on his true passions: national politics and liberty issues. In his daily columns and reports, Rolley works to help readers understand which lies are perpetuated by the mainstream media and to stay on top of issues ignored by more conventional media outlets.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • terryk

    wE AS A NATION SHOULD NO INTANGLE OUR LAWS WITH INTERNETIONAL LAW OR TREATIES.

  • vicki

    The framers were far smarter than the current population. They would NOT have provided such an easy method of circumventing the requirement that the constitution needed to be amended by not just the senate and President but by the House, Senate, President AND 3/4ths of the states.

    Thus all treaties must, just like all laws, be Constitutional.

    • Warrior

      Correct but will 5 others see it this way?

      • Vigilant

        Aye, there’s the rub. The principles of the Framers have not been followed for decades by any branch of government. The activist traitors on the SCOTUS have disregarded the Constitution with several recent decisions.

        You can bet that Scalia, Alito and Thomas would dissent with any such move and that Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan will allow it. It would require Roberts and Kennedy to swing in favor of the Conservatives to kill the move by the Justice Dept.

        • BigIron

          The SCOTUS does NOT have jurisdiction to determine the “constitutionality” of any “thing!” The SCOTUS was “created” by our “Constitution” therefore it cannot determine what is “constitutional”. John Marshall usurped the “power” to determine what is “constitutional” in 1803 with his ruling in the Marbury vrs Madison case.

          • Vigilant

            Regardless of either the merits or unconstitutionality of judicial review, it has been accepted as standard practice for over 200 years and has never been successfully challenged in court.

            If the nation lives another 200 years, judicial review will still be with us..

          • Old Wolf

            There is, actually, good evidence for the judicial review power, given that the framers benefited from an earlier case under Lord Coke, for which the Crown attempted treason charges.
            The nullification of laws outside of the power of government was itself part of the judicial powers, and the only judicial power granted to the supreme court. In fact, if you read through the Federalist papers, the federalist 78 deals with this particular issue.

          • Old Wolf

            Actually, the power predates that point. Read the federalist 78.

            “Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

            There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their
            powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

            If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution.

            It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.”

            This was prior to the ratification of the constitution itself, written by the men that framed it.

          • Old Wolf

            Actually, the power predates that point. Read the federalist 78.

            “Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

            There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their
            powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

            If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution.

            It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.”

            This was prior to the ratification of the constitution itself, written by the men that framed it.

    • BigIron

      To vote for any “thing” containing “unconstitutional” provisions would be conviction of “instant” TREASON for those voting in support of it thus instantly “nullifying” that vote!

    • Old Wolf

      Another murder case, Reid v. Covert, regarding the US treaty power has already been before the Supreme court.

      The obvious and decisive answer to this, of course, is that 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.
      Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

      “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .”

      There is nothing in this language 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. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in “pursuance” of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary

      Page 354 U. S. 17
      War, would remain in effect. [Footnote 31] 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. [Footnote 32]

      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 is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.

  • peter

    It would seem that attempts are afoot to ensure the destruction of the Republic and the installation of a Dictatorship. That would solve a lot of problems for the present fraudulent occupant of the WH, but would make life very dangerous and unpleasant for the populace. Time will tell but things do not look so rosy. It seems that there are a lot of angry folks around. Angry is one but angry, hungry, homeless slaves are quite another. Remember Spartacus?

    • BigIron

      Almost ALL “relevant” offices in our government are occupied by the “minions” of the PTB/NWO! …as are the major structure of both major parties.

  • rivahmitch

    Lock and load. It’s almost time. Semper Fi!

    • Warrior

      Yep!

    • red neck

      Ready Freddy…… I’m anticipating much blood.

      • rivahmitch

        Regretfully, so am I. None-the-less, we need to remember what Jefferson said about the needs of the “tree of liberty”. Those unwilling to kill and die to preserve their rights, freedoms and property will inevitably and deservedly lose them.

  • Warrior

    Oooh, can’t wait to see this 5-4 vote!

    • Old Wolf

      Court already had this vote in the 1950s.. Reid v. Covert. Gave absolute prohibition to attempting things by treaty that the constitution forbade.

  • StinkBomb Jones

    On the cusp of the death of the Republic with these USA-hating commie/socialists racist internationalists in charge….GOD HELP US!!!

  • bob

    Don’t expect the court to rule in favor of the constitution freedom or liberty.

    • red neck

      You are absolutely correct!!!! The court is bought and paid by king obama himself.

  • DavidL

    Once again, Cruz is raising straw men for his self-serving political and financial interests. Treaties ratified by the US Senate become part of our Constitution as explicitly stated in Article 6. Here is the relevant language:

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”

    Therefore, If a State law or Federal Statute conflicts with the requirements and obligations of a US Ratified treaty, the Treaty holds. Why? BECAUSE OUR CONSTITUTION EXPLICITLY SAYS SO! (No ambiguity in our Article 6 supremacy clause)

    Con-man Cruz contends ” if you find the limitations on the Federal government’s authority irksome, any President has a simple path to get around it,”…“Find any nation in the world, negotiate a treaty agreeing to do what you couldn’t do otherwise, and if the Senate ratifies it – and by the
    way that means you can cut the House of Representatives out of
    everything – then suddenly the Federal government has authority it
    didn’t have before.”

    1. No President can unilaterally implement a Treaty. It requires Senate ratification. (Article II sec.2)

    2. The House of Representatives has never been included in our treaty ratification process. The Constitution explicitly requires the… “Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…” (ADVICE AND CONSENT)

    3. Cruz argues, “any President has a simple path to get around it.”

    In his mind I’m sure it is simple. But in the real world of our Constitution, it’s impossible.

    As a Harvard lawyer, Cruz should know better. I have a secret for you, my conservative/Republicans citizens, he does. Hold on to your wallet.

    • Crusty LaPusee

      OK, maybe you are right here, I’m no expert…HOWEVER, My LOONY TUNES LIB friend, how do you give Obummer a pass on all the ILLEGAL ex. orders, all the ILLEGAL changes on ObummerCare, going to War without Congressional approval, using drones ILLEGALLY, abuse of ex. privilege, ILLEGAL use of recess appointments, taking ILLEGAL foreign donations during campaigns??????
      You only see GOP malfeasance, huh?? Obummer is a criminal & so is Holder The Racist Scolder!!!

      • vicki

        He is obviously in error as the framers would not have put it such an obvious back door to get around the entire purpose of the Constitution which is to LIMIT government.

        • Crusty LaPusee

          You are probably right because DavidL (L is for LIBNUT) is usually wrong!!

        • BigIron

          True. There was no need for the “founders” to specify more restrictions since to even attempt to vote to pass ANY “unconstitutional” or “unlawful” provision would be defacto, immediate TREASON!l …rendering the vote “invalid” and therefore moot.

    • Vigilant

      And I have a secret for you: nothing you’ve said counters Cruz’ assertions. We are aware of what the Constitution says.

      A little brush up in reading comprehension skills would do you some good. The question Cruz is addressing, and for which the Justice Department is seeking an answer, covers the extra-constitutional situation where “the Federal statute, as applied, goes far beyond the scope of the treaty, intrudes on traditional state prerogatives, and is concededly unnecessary to satisfy the government’s treaty obligations.”

      It is quite obvious what the Justice Dept. is seeking: they want cover from the SCOTUS to go BEYOND the treaty provisions to further encroach upon rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment.

      Obviously, a success in this area would indeed give lawmakers carte blanche to enact laws that violate the Constitutional restrictions on federal authority.

      You’re supremely naïve in assuming that the SCOTUS won’t make possible what you deem to be “impossible” under the Constitution. Activist traitor Ruth Bader Ginsburg has already used international laws and protocols in making her decisions, and you could expect Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer to go along with such an unconstitutional ruling. Alito, Scalia and Thomas would reliably dissent in such a blatant power grab, so it would remain in the hands of Kennedy and Roberts. May God help us.

      Nothing is surprising from this administration any more. Obama has shown a crass disregard for the Constitution and will continue to do so until he is out of office. .

    • TML

      You are leaving out the fundamental basics in understanding the structure of the Constitution in order to arrive at an erroneous conclusion.

      Treaties ratified by the US Senate become part of our Constitution as explicitly stated in Article 6, if they are made in pursuance to the Constitution itself, including the separation of powers, as well as the 10th Amendment. The relevant language reads:

      “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF; and all Treaties made, or 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding” (emphasis mine)

      1. Therefore, if a Federal Statute or treaty conflicts with the requirements, standards, and principles or violates the natural rights protected by US Constitution, or exceeds the powers delegated to it; said law or treaty ‘does not hold’.

      2. Furthermore, Federal jurisdiction (law or treaty) is limited to interstate and international matters. (e.g. Commerce Clause) …Not state domestic criminal matters such as a woman poisoning her husband’s mistress. The federal government only has power to regulate the commerce concerning those chemicals between states and nations.

      3. The Federal government only has power that is expressly delegated to it by the Constitution, leaving all other power NOT delegated the Federal Government to the States. (See 10th Amendment)
      (In Missouri v Holland, migratory birds are obviously an interstate and international matter, while the poisoning of a husband’s mistress is not. Thus, it is a state issue in prosecuting the crime.)

      4. The Supreme Court doesn’t really have the power to give the OK on something like this in a general sense (the power of “Judicial Review” is nowhere delegated to the SCOTUS by the Constitution – they assumed that power themselves, unconstitutionally, in Marbury v. Madison); they must rule on the specifics of a legitimate case.

      Ted Cruz is absolutely correct… the Justice Department assertions are a radical interpretation of the treaty clause, and logically indefensible. I will expect SCOTUS to rule appropriately.

      Your logic is a self-serving joke.

      • CatNip Omar UnderPants

        Great stuff here, TML……but, alas, IRAN STILL SUX DOODY BALLS!!

      • BigIron

        How can any one in the Senate who vote for any “treaty” which contains “unconstitutional” provisions do so without “instantly” committing TREASON to the CONSTITUTION?…and also violating their “oath of office”? Those who do so are instantly “guilty” of TREASON which immediately “nullifies” their vote making “lawful” passage of a treaty containing “unlawful” provisions impossible! Our “founders” understood this!

      • Old Wolf

        See also reid v. Covert on the subject.

        There is nothing in this language 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. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in “pursuance” of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary

        Page 354 U. S. 17

        War, would remain in effect. [Footnote 31]
        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. [Footnote 32]
        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.

    • Michael Shreve

      No straw man, and THAT article of the U.S. Constitution is EXACTLY why we MUST be very concerned about ALL treaties.

      • vicki

        It is not treaties nor that article of the Constitution that should worry us. It is the poor condition of the peoples ability to read and understand the Constitution that will doom us.

      • vicki

        It is not treaties nor that article of the Constitution that should worry us. It is the poor condition of the peoples ability to read and understand the Constitution that will doom us.

        • BigIron

          Too true! The Government schools have “succeeded” beyond reason.

    • usaok59

      Your argument MIGHT have some merit if the prez hadn’t already wiped his feet all over the Constitution. He installs czars and announces Executive Orders or changes laws (obamacare) any time he wants to.

      • BigIron

        The SCOTUS cannot judge anything Constitutional as they have no proper “jurisdiction” to do so. John Marshall usurped that “power” in 1803 with the Marbury vrs Marshal decision. The “SCOTUS” was “created” by the Constitution and cannot judge any “thing” to be “constitutional” or NOT! Only the “people” may properly judge something as “constitutional”!

    • vicki

      Actually the Constitution says that ANY treaty must conform to the Constitutional limits on government just as any law must.

      • BigIron

        There is NO “statute-of-limitations” on TREASON, FRAUD or MURDER. Anyone who creates an “unconstitutional” act or participates in an “unconstitutional” act of any kind is “guilty” of TREASON at the “instant” that TREASON is “initiated” NOT when “adjudged guilty” of that TREASON. Thus “nullifying” any “powers” they may have had.

    • BigIron

      WOW!

      “They” [our current and our previous governments] can do what they do ONLY because the “people” allow it . NONE of their “unconstitutional” ACTS are or can ever be “LAW-OF-THE-LAND”. ANY who “vote for” or in any way “participate” to “create” an “unlawful/unconstitutional” act, thing or etc. are, “instantly”, GUILTY of TREASON by their own “actions” and do NOT have to be “judged” guilty “before” their authority is “revoked”. Their “authority”, “power”, etc. is “instantly” revoked at the “instant” of the “commission” of the TREASON! Thus a “vote” cast for a TREATY which contains ANY “unconstitutional” thing IS “instantly nullified”! …Such aTREATY can never be RATIFIED or become “LAW-OF-THE-LAND” because it was “tainted” before the fact! …Even it the TREASON is only discovered later! …And there is NO “statute-of-limitations” for TREASON, FRAUD or MURDER!

  • Peggy

    International—INTER look it up people–can you read and understant? DOMESTIC–look that up too—NO the constitution was drafted as such to reign in an extremist–such as we are seeing now.

    • BigIron

      “DOMESTIC” comprises: the District of Columbia”, the “military reservations”, the “protectorates” and the “territories”, i.e., the constitutional “United States” of the Republic and the “United States” of the Corporation (1871); which was created as a “fictional overlay” of the “organic” United States of the Republic; NON-DOMESTIC is “still” the Republic and is comprised of the “united States” of the Republic. The “states” of today are also CORPORATIONS that overlay the “organic” constitutional states of the Republic.
      The “corporation” (the dead/fiction) cannot interact with the “republic” (the living/real). That’s why mail can be sent for 2cts per half-ounce using “denominated” stamps (“real” money) not “forever stamps” and sending it through the Republic and the Post Office (not the Postal Service) as “NON-DOMESTIC” mail “without the United States”. It will probably work OK but there are a few details that make it work better. The USPS is told that they must process the mail! ..But NOT why!

      Things are NOT as they seem!

  • mari

    “Let it not be forgot,
    That once there was a spot,
    For happily, everlastering,
    As here, in,
    Camelot.”
    The Rise and Fall of the American Republic

  • Stuart Shepherd

    I hate to be a pessimist, but the constitution is pretty much trashed already, especially if the Un Arms Treaty is ratified by the US, as the 2nd Ammendment is the “enforcement” ammendment. In reality, the 2nd Ammendment has already been trashed, as congress has already passed more than one law “infringing” on the right to bear arms, despite the fact that it says that congress shall make NO law “infringing” on that right, which means ZERO, including registration requirements and “mental health” provisions (which is impossible to regulate, predict, or even diagnose in most cases) and which are ALL just tools and weapons of totalitarianism.

    • Babylonandon

      You forgot to mention that Obama’s EPA has just shut down the last lead smelting plant in the US … I’d venture to guess lead is about to become really scarce.

      • BigIron

        Already beginning to be so, scarce and expensive.

        • Old Wolf

          I will say that copper makes an excellent bullet… and tungsten with a copper jacket can be heavier than lead, though is considered armor piercing under the current US law.

    • vicki

      Actually the First Amendment is the only one that mentions Congress.

      All the other amendments are binding upon government at ALL levels.
      Meaning that neither the Federal nor state nor local government is allowed to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.

      • BigIron

        Your analysis of the 2nd and 10th Amendments is quite accurate. The word Arms, being capitalized, refers to the “collective” of ALL arms. The word “people” with “lower-case” P refers to the “individual”, not the “collective” of ALL people as would People. The word “right” with the “lower-case” R means that it is a specific “right” not a general “right”.

      • Old Wolf

        Not only that, but the right to keep and bear arms was one of those protected, again, against the states under the 14th, and was prior understood to be against the states under the privileges and immunities clause of article 4, including in the Prudence Crandall case and arguments, as well as the Dred Scott case, for which the 14th was passed in order to preserve those rights regardless of state actions designed to deprive them.
        The law it was designed to guarantee the enforcement of is still on the books, never enforced, under title 18, section 241-242, and title 28, section 1341, and title 42, sections 1981-1985.
        The deprivation of any such right is a criminal felony, as well as dissolving any officer doing so from any state or federal immunity that he or she might otherwise enjoy.
        According to the framer of that law, and of the separate framer of the amendment, its purpose was to protect all rights, for all persons, regardless of race, or other artificial nomenclatures that might be used for that deprivation. This was upheld in McDonald v. Chicago, extending the second amendment fully, without question against the states, in spite of the legal status having been there for that for over two centuries by the time 2010 rolled around.

        • vicki

          We understand that but LEO’s don’t and the Fedral government shows no interest in defending our right to keep and bear arms.

          Here in Calif for instance if I were to walk down the street with a pistol in a holster on my hip I am the one who would be hauled off to jail and get a felony conviction and not the LEO’s that show up to arrest me.

          • Old Wolf

            That’s largely because of lack of education on both the law, and the cases in the matter. You have to be able, and willing to pursue the case, and to sue anyone who prevents you from exercising your rights. In some cases, in order to change the law, you have to break it.
            But in order to change it, you have to understand what the law is, understand that the government has been engaged for decades, and even over a century now int he willful deprivation of rights, as well as the recourses that are available. You have to be able and willing to make the arguments. Those arguments are very well covered up in many cases, and in numerous cases, the bar association claims that they say the opposite of what the cases themselves say in the dicta.
            By and large they depend on people not knowing their history, not being willing to look, and not researching.
            McDonald v Chicago, Miranda v. Arizona, Monroe v. Pape, and many others are involved in this, and make no mistake, there is a criminal conspiracy involved in the deprivation.
            Conspiracy only requires two or more people (prosecutor and judge) engaged in secret (via communications in private meetings or writs) for the accomplishment of a criminal act.
            Note, that this is also assuming that they don’t just shoot you on the spot, which is also entirely possible, and is a life in prison or death penalty offense.. but requires someone to bring it foreward under the prohibitions against state actions, and to be conversant enough, and persuasive and active enough to position the judges, and the prosecutors in a situation in which they are facing felony punishment for finding otherwise.
            Willful ignorance is still willfulness under the law, and ignorance of the law, on the part of the judges, etc, is no excuse since McDonald, and the court itself cannot lawfully engage in an unlawful, felonious act.The key, perhaps, is to engage the title 42 actions under 1983 prior to the active exercise, thus converting the title 42 actions over to an obviously willful title 18 action, and to make certain title 18, sections 2, 3, and 4 are well enough known that the willful engagement must be prosecuted.
            This particular code doesn’t even exempt the president himself.

          • vicki

            We know this well and since Google did not hire me in its early days I don’t have the funds to take these to court. Fortunately if we avoid donating money to compromisers like the NRA and focus instead on organizations who might actually fight in court we will have a better chance.

            Organizations like the ones who brought us the McDonald v Chicago victory and the Heller vs Washington DC victory.

            The McDonald v Chicago victory was not a very clean victory.

            “The plurality decision also reaffirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case.

            Such restrictions include those to “prohibit…the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill” and “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms”

            “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago#McDonald_v._Chicago_as_compared_to_NRA_v._Chicago”

            The decision only really established that the stupid

            Selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights now included the 2nd Amendment.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29

            Still missing are the definitions of Shall, not, and Infringed. There may still be controversy on the definition of be since President Clinton raised the question of the definition of “is”

          • Old Wolf

            After all, the unconstitutional simply takes enough lawyers. *chuckles* Part of the reason for that particular section of that decision was McDonald’s decision not to pursue that section. It was mentioned in the court that since McDonald didn’t see any problems with it, that they wouldn’t approach it.

  • Michael Shreve

    The MAJOR concern here is that by adopting treaties passed by the U.N. and others that DEMONSTRABLY hate the U.S. The One World Government Tyrants CAN run roughshod over the Bill of Rights. Though Obama IS doing that NOW without significant push back.

    • TML

      Even according the the UN Charter, the treaties do not inherently apply to ‘domestic’ matters.

      “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United
      Nations [or it’s members] to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state…” – UN Charter; Chapter 1, Article 2, Section 7

      The Federal government is then limited in accordance with it’s jurisdiction only over interstate (or international) matters.

      The case in question, regarding the use of a chemical to commit a crime by one individual against another on State land, is in the jurisdiction of the State. Not the Federal government.

      If the crime had occurred on Federal land, then attempted use of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act would be moot, as it [Federal Government] would already have jurisdiction to prosecute the crime of murder.

      The extent of central government jurisdiction on this matter is limited to the regulation of commerce concerning the chemicals used.

    • BigIron

      “They” [our current and our previous governments] can do what they do ONLY because the “people” allow it . NONE of their “unconstitutional” ACTS are or can ever be “LAW-OF-THE-LAND”. ANY who “vote for” or in any way “participate” to “create” an “unlawful/unconstitutional” act, thing or etc. are, “instantly”, GUILTY of TREASON by their own “actions” and do NOT have to be “judged” guilty “before” their authority is “revoked”. Their “authority”, “power”, etc. is “instantly” revoked at the “instant” of the “commission” of the TREASON! Thus a “vote” cast for a TREATY which contains ANY “unconstitutional” thing IS “instantly nullified”! …Such a TREATY can never be RATIFIED or become “LAW-OF-THE-LAND” because it was “tainted” before the fact! …Even it the TREASON is only discovered later! …And there is NO “statute-of-limitations” for TREASON, FRAUD or MURDER!

      • Old Wolf

        Nor is there any statute of limitations under title 18, section 242. See also title 18, sections 2, 3, and 4, and McDonald v. Chicago, and reid v. Covert, and Monroe v. Pape

      • Old Wolf

        Nor is there any statute of limitations under title 18, section 242. See also title 18, sections 2, 3, and 4, and McDonald v. Chicago, and reid v. Covert, and Monroe v. Pape

  • CommonSense4America

    Well, it starting to look like I’m not going to have to worry about my retirement money running out before I die. I pray that I am wrong but “the tree of liberty”, once again, may need watering.

    • emptymag

      You forgot the last part “with the blood of tyrants”

      • CommonSense4America

        Didn’t want to scare people that didn’t know the quote. Stay vigilant.

  • BigIron

    TREASON is done when the ACT, itself, is committed NOT later when that ACT has been “judged” to be a TREASON! When some one commits a TREASON they lose ALL “authority” INSTANTLY and ALL of their acts FROM that time forward are WITHOUT any “authority” whatsoever! Thus, NO “UNLAWFUL” treaty can EVER be RATIFIED and made LAW-OF-THE-LAND because ANY ONE who “signed off” on it was instantly “guilty” of TREASON and their “vote” a “nullity!”
    Our “founders” did NOT waste words on that which should have been obvious to those NOT products of the Government Schools!

  • Daniel F. Melton

    If they really want a shooting war, this is the way to start it.

  • PamelaB.

    It’s time for drastic measures. Get involved!
    http://conventionofstates.com/