Cougar, you are correct in that I am saying there is no treaty and that no one knows what it will do. You are incorrect in that I am saying what it will do - I am only saying my interpretation of what the UN working documents say since it is apparent that not many people have actually read it. I think this because so many people are talking about what this treaty will do that aren't mentioned anywhere in the working documents. There ~is~ room for these thing to happen, sure, but none of it is spelled out yet.
I'm not suggesting we should believe the UN document, by the way, but at least read it.
My Indian Argument is not flawed. Black slaves in the 19th century were legally slaves so of course the 2nd amendment didn't apply to them - they weren't even legally people. The treaties with the various Native American tribes were treaties with
sovereign nations that were not citizens under out constitution. The American government does not enforce treaties at anywhere near the same level as constitutional amendments. Nor do they enter into judicial precedent cases with the same weight. Fact. Historically proven. Generally this is a non-statement, anyway, because the international treaties don't come anywhere close to conflicting with the constitution. My only point is that the linked article is wrong on that point. International treaties do not have the same legal weight as amendments. Do you disagree with that?
He's not illegally bypassing Congress, but as Dick pointed out in the video, we are not allowed to do things counter to the treaty once it's been signed...
This is also wrong. It is true once the treaty is ~ratified~ not once the treaty is signed. Signing an international treaty isn't the same thing as President signing a bill into law. It still has to get a 2/3 vote in the Senate before it has any affect on us. And if the treaty does conflict with US law we actually need to change the law BEFORE ratifying the treaty. This isn't a "back door" for gun control. This thing, if it gets signed at all, is going to be marched up Capital Hill and right in through the big double doors.
Basically your point is that until we pass the health care bill and find out what's in it, there's no point talking about it.
If you assume that signing the treaty makes it binding it looks like that, doesn't it? But this is the nature of international treaties - all the signing means is that this is the final wording that we all take home for ratification. So by definition there is no treaty to discuss until it is signed. Until it is signed the wording can still change. That is my point here: signing the treaty is not at all the same as passing a law and that there will be no definitive treaty UNTIL it is signed. Do you disagree?
Consider the alternatives to having the state department do the negotiating for this kind of treaty. Do all the nations involved shut down their congresses, parliaments, etc. and trundle them ALL off to the conference to hash out the collective will of their various nations' interests directly? Can you imagine?
So the state department goes and represents the US interests for the process of negotiating the treaty, puts it stamp of approval on the final document - along with all the other nations - gets the final, signed copy in their language and takes it home for, in our case, Senatorial review. The state department is not authorized to make binding agreements as part of this process, only to represent the US interests in it.
I'm not saying that the treaty itself will be good or bad, I'm saying that all of the current alarm about it stems from an incomplete understanding of how the treaty process works. And that an opportunity to see the treaty as a potentially GOOD thing for gun rights, and to strategize accordingly, is being lost.