On April 2, 2013 an overwhelming majority of the states represented at the United Nations passed the latest version of the Arms Trade Treaty 2013. Only requiring 97 states to affirm its passage, the results were 154 Yes, including the U.S. and U.K., some of the larger gun manufacturers and exporters, 3 No (Iran, Syria, Tajikistan), with 23 abstaining, such as Russia and China.
According to the U.N. website (disarmament/ATT), the signature and ratification of the ATT is to be held on June 3, 2013.
Concern of Americans falls under their 2nd Amendment rights to “keep and bear arms” and that the right “shall not be infringed upon”, will be thwarted. The warranted lack of trust for the government and their overreaching powers leaves most citizens in either fear or resolve over gun rights, while a minority praise the actions of stripping law-abiding citizens of their constitutional right.
Some in the government of course, as well as the U.N., have tried to argue that the ATT will not infringe upon the 2nd Amendment rights of the citizens.
This is true and the American people know it.
While the constitution is specific in its Bill of Rights, it seems some lawmakers, and those in the Executive Branch, believe their law (or personal ideology) trump the constitution.
In Marbury v Madison, 1803, Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall disagrees with that notion.
The very in-depth, thorough 1803 opinion concludes with the following paragraph:
“Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.“
Again, while no treaty signed by a president of the United States is legally binding without the consent (ratification) by the U.S. Senate, and while no law or ratified treaty should be legally binding if it opposes the U.S. Constitution, the latest litany of scandals to rock D.C. has proven that the U.S. government continues to believe themselves to be both outside and above the law of the land.
The Forbes article also mentions the following:
So do the citizens of the United States of America have anything to worry about?
As Chief Marshall stated:
“From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.
Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!”
So, too, do the House and Senate Legislatures and the President of the United States, swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? If it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.”