DANGER, DANGER, DANGER.  On June 3, the UN General Assembly will present a treaty that threatens to take away our right to bear arms and to supersede the Second Amendment.  And, President Obama will, as part of that, hand over our sovereignty to the UN!

On Tuesday, April 2, 2013, the UN General Assembly approved a Global Arms Trade Treaty by a vote of 155 to 3 with 22 abstentions http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/03/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE9310MN20130403.  The United States voted in favor. 

I was interested in finding out what we had agreed to.  After reading several accounts containing only vague summaries, I tried to look it up myself, but the UN is keeping it from the public.  Here’s what I learned:

•  There is no Treaty as yet (at least that’s been released by the UN).  The UN membership could not agree on a text.  The vote was for a draft General Assembly Resolution to proceed with completing a treaty that could be offered for a vote.
• ·The three votes against the draft Resolution were Iran, Syria and North Korea.  Abstainers included Russia, China, Columbia, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and…Cuba.
• ·The Arms to be banned from trading include rockets, tanks, artillery, and… “certain small arms.”  http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/.  CERTAIN SMALL ARMS – does that set off any bells?  Who will decide what “certain” means, I wonder?
• ·The Treaty will be presented for signature on June 3, 2013 and will go into effect 90 days after the fiftie^thth signature is applied.  So, less than one-third of member nations need to sign in order for the Treaty to be binding on all, including us.

So, what the will of the people prevents the Obama Administration from doing, he can get done through the back door.

How is this constitutional, you ask?  Here’s what the Constitution has to say:

 1.  “He (the President) shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, providing two-thirds of the Senators PRESENT (my emphasis) concur; (Article II., Section 2., paragraph 2).

 2.  “The judicial power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made … under their Authority…” (Article III, Section 2, paragraph 1). 

 3.  “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; AND ALL TREATIES MADE (my emphasis), … under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding” (Article VI, paragraph 2).

 Plain Talk

Here’s what it means:

 1.  The President can make treaties, but the Senate must approve them by a two-thirds vote of “Senators present.”  Not two-thirds of the total Senate, just of those present at the time of the vote.  Do you think that the Senate leadership would not look for a late-night chance to take a vote when known dissenters are out of the room? 

 2.  The Supreme Court has the power to review such treaties.  How long do you think that it would take for a case and appeal to survive delaying tactics and be taken up by the Court (if indeed the Court could even withstand the opposition of the Administration and vote in favor of hearing it)?  And, what are the chances that the Court would find the treaty unconstitutional, especially in light of their capitulation on Obamacare being a tax?

 3.  A treaty becomes the highest law, superseding all laws of every State. 

The only way out that I can see rests on the word “Authority.”  Does the President have the Authority to enter into a treaty that contradicts the Constitution (in this case the Second Amendment [“certain small arms”])?  Does the Senate have the Authority to concur in such a treaty?  How long would it take for these questions to be resolved ?

What is even more frightening is that all of the above may not matter.  As long as we are a member of the UN, we would be bound by this treaty, even if we voted against it.  The UN General Assembly has set the approval number so low, that the number of approving votes will be reached easily.  Then, our only choice will be quit the UN (fat chance) or defy the treaty.  Does anyone see that happening?