Quote of the day—Alan M. Gottlieb

It is an insult to United States sovereignty that the U.N. would be entertaining such measures while enjoying this country’s hospitality at its headquarters in New York City. It is the greatest irony, and perhaps the pinnacle of hypocrisy, for the United Nations to be discussing any treaty that might threaten our Second Amendment, because it has been the United States, with its citizen soldiers and our constitutional right to keep and bear arms that has come to the world’s rescue not once, but twice in global conflicts.

Alan M. Gottlieb
CCRKBA Chairman
December 7, 2011
CCRKBA APPLAUDS WALSH LEGISLATION TO WITHHOLD UNITED NATIONS FUNDING
[A lot of people think concern over the U.N. Small Arms Treaty is paranoia and/or a fund raising ruse. I probably should do more research on the topic before taking a really firm stand but my initial take is that it would require registration of firearms in the U.S.. That is totally unacceptable and more than sufficient grounds to vigorously oppose it.—Joe]

12 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Alan M. Gottlieb

  1. It wouldn’t require anything whatsoever, and it IS a fundraising ruse.

    In fact, I have specifically told the NRA to stop calling me about it and lying about it, or I will cancel my life membership.

    No treaty with any foreign power my supersede or conflict with our constitution, ever, in any way. If they do, they are invalid and void on their face; in all articles and particulars (not just in those that violate our constitution).

    No treaty may be enforced in or by the United States, without the consent of the senate; which must vote to ratify the treaty by a 2/3 majority. The senate may not ratify any treaty, with any clause that would conflict with or supersede the United States constitution. If they did, such a vote would not be valid, and the treaty could not be enforced. The senate cannot ratify an unconstitutional treaty, in any way, period.

    Also, no senate elected in the last 25 years would ever vote to ratify such a treaty. They wouldn’t get 25%, never mind 66%.

    And no, if the U.N. passes it, we are not automatically subject to its provisions, simply because we are a member, or a signatory of other U.N. treaties and agreements.

    If by some unholy miracle such a treaty were ratified, and the executive branch tried to enforce it; this would in fact be, at best, misfeasance of office. The enabling legislation or executive order for enforcement would be unconstitutional and thus invalid on pronouncement or promulgation.

    Finally, any court, when presented with a case opposing such legislation or order, would be REQUIRED to immediately invalidate it.

    So unless they amend the constitution, no international treaty represents any kind of real threat to any internal right or freedom; unless our system is so totally destroyed that our constitution doesn’t matter at all any more…

    …In which case, who gives a damn anyway, it’s time to start killing politicians and judges.

    That said, it’s still worth defeating. For one thing, it would even further increase costs and reduce availability of imported arms; as well as reduce our export markets.

    It’s just the lie about it being an immediate and serious threat to our right to keep and bear arms that pisses me off.

    This has come up… maybe a dozen times in the last 20 years or so by the way; and it’s the same thing, every time.

  2. Nice one, Chris.

    Well I’ve figured that the main purpose of the UN is to procure goodies from the U.S., and to otherwise inflate the relevance of lesser nations. If they get us pissed off too much, the gravy train throttles back. Now that we’re in debt over our heads, this relationship may change.

  3. I don’t think Gottlieb gets it. This is important.

    “It is the greatest irony, and perhaps the pinnacle of hypocrisy, for the United Nations to be discussing any treaty that might threaten our Second Amendment, because it has been the United States, with its citizen soldiers and our constitutional right to keep and bear arms that has come to the world’s rescue not once, but twice in global conflicts.”

    No. There is no irony there at all. It is precisely because the U.S. has come to the world’s rescue that the U.S. with its citizen soldiers must be brought down in size and strength. Seriously, Mr G, you have to understand how the tyrants of the world think.

    I think Chris is on the right track, but that doesn’t mean the tyrants and general scum-bags in the U.N. don’t have a certain agenda. It’s just a matter of what they can get away with.

  4. @Chris, Can you show us in the Constitution or even case law where a treaty is not allowed to override constitionally protected rights? Please take into account the chemical weapons treaty of a few years ago where from all appearance a foriegn nation could inspect underneath my kitchen sink let alone Dow Chemical factories without regard to the 4th Amendment if they wanted to.

    And who REQUIRES and then enforces that requirement upon the courts? My impression is that the courts do whatever they feel like and frequently regard the Constitution as a general guideline to be used only if it can support the decision they want to make.

  5. Really Joe?

    The constitution is, in its own text, the highest and supreme law of the land. No law or act (including the act of ratifying a treaty) can supersede it. That’s in the text itself.

    Article VI, clause 2 declares that “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; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    Second, there is a LARGE body of constitutional law supporting it; most importantly Geofroy v. Riggs and Reid v. Covert.

    Quoting:

    “The United States is entirely [354 U.S. 1, 6] a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.

    (Quoting Article VI, Clause 2…) “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.”

    Since all authority, for all law, and all enforcement, derives from the constitution; no act or action of the government of the United States can be in conflict with the constitution, or it is illegitimate and without constitutional authority.

    And no, courts can’t do whatever they want… though many judges, and many useful idiots in the general populace… seem to think it is so. More properly, they know it is not so (excepting said useful idiots), but because they wish it is so, they act as if it is so.

    Oh and the U.N. chemical weapons inspectors have NO statutory authority in the united states. If they wish to conduct an inspection, it is either voluntary, or they must seek a court order, with the cooperation of the state department and justice department; to act as OBSERVERS, in investigating a violation of U.S. law (it is unlawful to manufacture chemical weapons precursors in the united states without valid licenses, and registration with the state departments office of export controls; under U.S. code, not UN treaty).

  6. Really Joe?

    The constitution is, in its own text, the highest and supreme law of the land. No law or act (including the act of ratifying a treaty) can supersede it. That’s in the text itself.

    Article VI, clause 2 declares that “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; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    Second, there is a LARGE body of constitutional law supporting it; most importantly Geofroy v. Riggs and Reid v. Covert.

    Quoting:

    “The United States is entirely [354 U.S. 1, 6] a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.

    (Quoting Article VI, Clause 2…) “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.”

    Since all authority, for all law, and all enforcement, derives from the constitution; no act or action of the government of the United States can be in conflict with the constitution, or it is illegitimate and without constitutional authority.

    And no, courts can’t do whatever they want… though many judges, and many useful idiots in the general populace… seem to think it is so. More properly, they know it is not so (excepting said useful idiots), but because they wish it is so, they act as if it is so.

    Oh and the U.N. chemical weapons inspectors have NO statutory authority in the united states. If they wish to conduct an inspection, it is either voluntary, or they must seek a court order, with the cooperation of the state department and justice department; to act as OBSERVERS, in investigating a violation of U.S. law (it is unlawful to manufacture chemical weapons precursors in the united states without valid licenses, and registration with the state departments office of export controls; under U.S. code, not UN treaty).

  7. Oh and no, Article VI doesn’t include in that language the ability for treaties to supersede the constitution; it states that treaties made UNDER the FEDERAL constitution, supersede the states constitutions.

    That has been made clear by the supreme court since the 1790s

  8. Chris:

    Article VI, clause 2 declares that “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;”

    That does not clearly state that the Constitution is superior to treaties. I wish that it did, rather than leaving that up to the courts.

  9. @Chris

    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.

    And there is nothing that says a treating can’t superseded Constitutional protection. And even when the Constitution strictly forbids something it can take decades for the political winds to change sufficiently for illegal government acts to be overthrown.

  10. Uhh actually there is, yes.

    One, since the constitution is the highest law of the land, no treaty can be higher than it.

    Two, since ALL government in this country derives its authority from the constitution, no treaty can supersede or conflict with it; as it would not have that authority.

    Three, Reid v. Covert made this absolutely and unambiguously clear, via the supreme court.

  11. Actually, I think I see where your confusion is.

    In the 18th century, the philosophy of law was always, that what was not said, was as important as that which is said explicitly.

    It was never thought necessary to make some restrictions explicit, because they are obvious for anyone not trying to deliberately distort the law.

  12. @Chris, I understand the part about enumerated powers and the firmly held belief at the time of writing that the government would have not power beyond that which was specifically given to it. But that just doesn’t seem to matter anymore. Otherwise how could “Social Security”, the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, let alone the ATF and thousand of other non-enumerated powers come into being?

    I had not read Reid v. Covert until a few minutes ago so I was under the impression that was an unsettled question. That reassures me to the point that I fear the prospect of the treaty no more any other political act from the legislative bodies.

Comments are closed.