UN Treaty v Article 6, US Constitution

[Bob A]

"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."

So here's the question: Can a treaty ratified by the Senate and signed by POTUS invalidate an enumerated right, namely the 2nd Amendment?

Could such a treaty even be valid?

Seems to my limited understanding that it is not logically possible for such a treaty to supercede the founding document that would seem to authorise it. Seems to me, again, that this Article enforces treaties over the separate States, rather than the Federal authority.

Has this question ever come into play?

 

[3/2ACR Vet]

No, a treaty cannot invalidate a right enumerated by the constitution.

Yes, this has come before the Supremes before.

The supreme court decision in Reid v. Covert holds that the constitution trumps any treaty.

 

[Mark75H]

Reid v Covert

The Court's core holding of the case is that U.S. Citizen civilians abroad have the right to Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment constitutional protections

Everyone assumed Obamacare would fail the court test as well

 

[3/2ACR Vet]

The ruling in this case basically said that no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on Congress, or any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.
The Court felt that Article VI, clause 2 was written the way it was written not to make Treaties supreme but instead to simple keep treaties written prior to ratification of the Constitution in force.
The Court also distinguished this case from Missouri v. Holland (252 U.S. 416 (1920)) by saying that in this case, the Treaty directly violated a Constitutional protection. In Holland, it was more of an indirect violation.


The Affordable Care Act is not a treaty with a foreign power.

 

[OLM-Medic]

Why are you so worried? Isn't that why we have the guns in the first place?

 

[MdTiger]

John Kerry indicates that the US is willing to sign the treaty, even though members from both parties have submitted their disapproval and a request to reject it. It is doubtful that the treaty would ever be ratified, but it demonstrates the arrogance and contempt of the current administration.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ect-un-arms-treaty-as-it-opens-for-signature/

 

[crowleycr]

John Kerry indicates that the US is willing to sign the treaty, even though members from both parties have submitted their disapproval and a request to reject it. It is doubtful that the treaty would ever be ratified, but it demonstrates the arrogance and contempt of the current administration.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ect-un-arms-treaty-as-it-opens-for-signature/

Are they not more reminiscent of a crime family than an administration?

 

[Big Dog]

...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding

I think this means that anything in the Constitution or Laws of any state are not invalidated by the treaty.

Not a lawyer but that is my understanding of these words.

 

[EL1227]

John Kerry indicates that the US is willing to sign the treaty, even though members from both parties have submitted their disapproval and a request to reject it. It is doubtful that the treaty would ever be ratified, but it demonstrates the arrogance and contempt of the current administration.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ect-un-arms-treaty-as-it-opens-for-signature/

John F'n Kerry was a liar and a traitor during the Vietnam era, as he was after and still is today.