BillOfRights

Constitutional Disability

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.”
In other words, we have President Obama’s assurance that “if you like the Second Amendment, you can keep the Second Amendment.” That is certainly reassuring. But…

The Vice President of Disability

A few days ago (November 1), the Obama administration launched a new push on a different treaty, the Disabilities Treaty (more formally, “The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities“). Biden qualifies, so to speak, as he stuttered growing up.  (Obama’s website indicates that having trouble with schoolwork and not getting along well with others are disabilities.)
Here is the logic that Vice President Biden uses to push for ratification. We should submit to this UN treaty because:
  1. More than 130 other countries have signed it;
  2. It won’t change anything in the US;
  3. It affects more than a billion people world wide;
  4. 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

  • Citizen Tom

    If a treaty conflicts with our Constitution, there must be something wrong with the treaty. Moreover, since our elected leaders have sworn to support and defend the Constitution, we should wonder why they would ever consider signing a treaty that is in conflict with our Constitution. At least we should wonder why we are electing such people.

    I don’t think the Founding Fathers intended any such thing, but the unfortunate fact is that the treaty power does provide a potential means for an end run around the normal amendment process. Will it work? With the Supreme Court we have now? Who knows?

  • LexingtonGreen

    Hopefully the when the ruling comes in on todays case at the supreme court we will have some protection from treaty over reach.