In a very short period of time, barring Divine Intervention, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will become a signatory, under the direction of Barrack Obama, to the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty (UNATT), a treasonous attempt to disarm every American and abolish the Constitution’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. As U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon describes its purpose, “Our goal is clear: a robust and legally binding Arms Trade Treaty that will have a real impact on the lives of those millions of people suffering from consequences of armed conflict, repression and armed violence…It is ambitious, but it is achievable.” (What is curious is their pathetic, marxist mindset that DISARMING citizens will PROTECT them against ARMED VIOLENCE and REPRESSION. How’d that work out for the German, Chinese and Russian people. Isn’t that the SOLE PURPOSE of the Second Amendment? To ALLOW its citizens to protect THEMSELVES from REPRESSION and TYRANNY?)
In 2006, then-President George W. Bush administration voted AGAINST a UN resolution that called for the drafting of the UNATT. However, the current administration reversed that policy, and strongly supports its enactment. In January 2010, U.S. representatives joined with those of 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution to draft a blueprint for enactment in 2012. This activity is planned to be completed by July 27, and Hillary Clinton has pledged to push hard for Senate ratification. Previously led by the United Kingdom, there can be no doubt that the U.N.’s 193-member General Assembly will approve it.
Foreign ministers of the U.K., France, Germany and Sweden want the treaty to cover all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons, all types of munitions, and related technologies. They also advocate that it include strong provisions governing human rights, international humanitarian law and sustainable development.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Internal Security and Nonproliferation, Thomas Countryman, has stated that the Obama administration does not support regulation of ammunition, but only wants to make it more difficult to “conduct illicit, illegal and destabilizing transfers of arms”. In addition, a press release issued by the U.N. Office for Disarmament Affairs says that “The outcome will not seek to prohibit citizens of any country from possessing firearms or to interfere with the legal trade in small arms and light weapons.” Yeah… RIGHT.
On June 29, 130 Republican House members sent a letter to Obama arguing the proposed treaty infringes on the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms,” and that “…the U.N.’s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.” The lawmakers adamantly insist that the U.S. Government has NO RIGHT to support a treaty in direct violation the Constitution and Bill of Rights, specifically in this case, the Second Amendment, a cornerstone of the Constitution that gives American citizens the right to defend against a tyrannical government.
Some Americans, and lawmakers, remain optimistic that even if signed, the Treaty will NOT pass ratification in the senate, making it all a moot point. But… will it ever make it to the floor of the Senate? Is Obama hedging on Reid to delay introduction of the Treaty for ratification, thus making the Treaty binding without a Senate vote? You bet he is, and his Ace-In-The-Hole is Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaty, which in its simplest summary binds the United States to the terms of the Treaty regardless of whether or not it has been ratified by the Senate.
Although signing is not typically viewed as a manifestation of consent to be bound to a treaty, many international law academics and lawyers contend that signing does impose certain obligations on the signatory country. This contention is based on a provision in the Vienna Convention, a treaty that regulates the formation, interpretation, and termination of treaties. Article 18 of the Vienna Convention states that a nation that signs a treaty is “obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty “until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty.” Although the United States has not ratified the Vienna Convention, executive branch officials have stated on a number of occasions that they view much of the Convention as reflecting binding customary international law. Moreover, when the executive branch initially sought Senate ratification of the Vienna Convention, State Department officials specifically described the Article 18 object and purpose obligation as a codification of customary international law, and State Department officials have since repeated this description. If the United States is bound by international law not to defeat the object and purpose of treaties that it has signed but not ratified, then the unilateral signature of the president or his agent can bind the United States to certain international legal obligations. Commentators have made a variety of claims in recent years concerning U.S. obligations under signed but unratified treaties. For example, Article 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child prohibits the use of the death penalty for anyone who committed their offense under the age of eighteen, and some commentators have claimed that U.S. execution of such juvenile offenders — something permitted in a number of U.S. states before the Supreme Court’s decision in Roper v. Simmons — violated the object and purpose of the Convention.
The practical significance of these purported signing obligations is illustrated by the U.S. decision to “unsign” the International Criminal Court treaty. In making its announcement, the Bush Administration expressly sought to preclude arguments that it was bound to assist the Court as a result of the signature. The letter sent by the United States to the Secretary-General stated that “the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty,” and that “[a]ccordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature [of the treaty],” an apparent reference to Article 18 of the Vienna Convention. That same day, in defending the
Bush Administration’s action before the Center for Strategic and International Studies, an Administration official stated that the Administration’s actions were “consistent with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.” In an even more direct reference to Article 18 of the Convention, the U.S. Ambassador for War Crimes Issues explained in a press conference that the Administration’s announcement would help the United States preserve its flexibility because “when one is a signatory . . . the state commits to not taking actions that would be designed to defeat the object and the purpose of the treaty.”
So in a nutshell, if signed by Hillary Clinton, endorsed by Barrack Obama, and left sitting under a stack of papers by Harry Reid, the Obama administration will view this as an LEGAL OBLIGATION to cooperate with, and fulfill the obligations of the Arms Trade Treaty under Article 18 of the Vienna Convention, once again USURPING not only Congress, but the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and MOST IMPORTANTLY… WE, THE PEOPLE! If EVER there was a motivational example of the importance of this election, both on the Presidential ticket, but CONGRESS as well, this is it!
* * * * * * * *
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: As a Marine Corps combat and Public Affairs veteran, Robert Philip Dean has seen the cultural and religious differences that have caused the current strife between the United States and Middle East countries, as well as those individuals who are attempting to usurp the Constitution and overthrow the Country. Robert has several years’ experience dealing with political and military issues on the local, state and national levels where he was successful in helping Conservative candidates win election to the House and Senate. He currently focuses his organization, The American Patriot Alliance, on enforcement of the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act, illegal immigration/border security and guarding against foreign groups attempting to undermine the Spirit of American Exceptionalism. Robert was graduated from George Washington University with a Bachelor degree in Political Science and currently manages the day-to-day operations of his foundation from his home in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Powered by Facebook Comments