For some time, an email has circulated about the UN Small Arms Treaty, that it would provide a mechanism for the United Nations to force the Obama administration to take the guns of US citizens. Snopes.com declares the idea that the UN treaty would provide “a legal way around the Second Amendment” completely false. Why? Well, because:
“…the U.S. ‘voted in favor [of the treaty only] after the Obama Administration secured its key “red line” that the treaty would have no impact on the Second Amendment.”
The Vice President of Disability
- More than 130 other countries have signed it;
- It won’t change anything in the US;
- It affects more than a billion people world wide;
- We would only have authority to force other countries to change if WE ratify the treaty, even though they already have.
But you have to wonder — if we can force them to change by virtue of this treaty, doesn’t that work the other way? Especially since the Obama webpage and the State Department webpage have so many changes in mind for Americans with disabilities, not least of which is screening at birth and at age 2. Also, how is that that the treaty the other countries have already ratified has no force unless the US joins in as well?
Can this treaty affect the Constitution? Yes indeed, according to the President Obama’s US Attorney,where today the US Supreme Court will hear arguments that the Constitution flatly states that treaties override the Constitution. The rationale, in short, is that the Constitution says that treaties must be obeyed. Here are the case’s details and documents.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle