> Treaty to supersede the Bill of Rights
The article isn't saying that. The closest the article comes is quoting the opinion of John Bolton who says
Quote:
This U.N. treaty will lead to more gun control in America. “After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms,” former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton warns. “The [Obama] administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.”
So what Bolton is saying is that the Obama administration wants to restrict firearms and can't get
that done through legislation, so he will instead sign a treaty that will force the United States to pass
legislation that will restrict firearms. In either case, the same Congress would need to pass that
legislation. If President Obama can't get legislation passed without the treaty, why would he be
able to with the treaty? 2/3 of the Senate is required to approve a treaty anyway, and there are
probably at least 34 Senators that would not want to restrict firearms, otherwise President Obama
wouldn't even require this alleged end around to reach that goal. Let's say all that magically does
happen, it's my opinion that the Supreme Court would invalidate any legislation that runs counter
to the Constitution. That would certainly apply to gun control measures with the court's current
makeup.
You can read more about it at factcheck.org.
Oh for Pete's sake.
loser.com
|
Index 
Flat 
Re: treaties
Reply
