Saturday, April 13, 2013

What's Tammy Been Doing?

Wisconsin's junior Senatrix--another State Socialist--doesn't mention this vote.

In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the bill read:

To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty
.

IOW, the 46 voted to dump the 2A into the dustbin of history.  Remember, folks:  ratified treaties become the law of the land, superceding any other laws and the Constitution itself.


Tammy. 

Think she'd brag about this, ain'a?

Bonus question:  would she shitcan the 1A just as easily?  How about the 5A?  8A?  14th?

HT:  Bob Owens

17 comments:

Deekaman said...

It is only the Rights of hose of us on the political right they are trying to dispose of...or at least that's what the other lefties think. They come for us first, but the useful idiots will be the first forced to board the train.

Deekaman said...

No treaty can supercede the Constitution

Jim said...

I thought "2A" guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms, not manufacture and sell them to any warlord or tin pot dictator anywhere in the world.

Anonymous said...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

...that's all it says.

Jim said...

Exactly! So assuming that applies only to citizens and legal residents of the United States, how would keeping guns out of the hands of roving bands of 12-year-olds in central Africa infringe on "2A" rights?

Otherwise, we are not really talking about "2A" rights. We're talking about the "right" of gun manufacturers to make money any way they please regardless of social, human impact anywhere in the world.

This apparently is the true agenda of the NRA.

Dad29 said...

You're right, Deek...

however:

"...the Court has said: “The power of Congress to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution as well the powers enumerated in section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, as all others vested in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or the officers thereof, includes the power to enact such legislation as is appropriate to give efficacy to any stipulations which it is competent for the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to insert in a treaty with foreign power.”325 In a word, the treaty-power cannot purport to amend the Constitution by adding to the list of Congress’ enumerated powers, but having acted, the consequence will often be that it has provided Congress with an opportunity to enact measures which independently of a treaty Congress could not pass; the only question that can be raised as to such measures is whether they are “necessary and proper” measures for the carrying of the treaty in question into operation."

see: http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-2/18-treaties-as-law-of-the-land.html

It is also the case that the Administration (really, the A.G.) can carry out such actions necessary to make the treaty's provisions operative in the US.

Anonymous said...

The resolution explicitly states that it is “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”

So Dad29's "legitimate concern" is one that is rooted in conspiracy.

Jim said...

Precisely!

Anonymous said...

When isn't it?

Dad29 said...

Umnnh, yah.

That was the resolution which Tammy voted AGAINST.

Were you guys the title of Dumb and Dumber?

Anonymous said...

"That was the resolution which Tammy voted AGAINST."

There's nothing in the treaty that compromises American sovereignty and there is nothing in the treaty that in any way infringes on the Second Amendment rights of any law abiding American citizen.

What happened was that Senator Inhofe slipped an amendment into a budget bill...

S.CON.RES.8

Latest Title: An original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2014, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2013, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2015 through 2023.

--that read--

Question: On the Amendment (Inhofe Amdt. No. 139)
Vote Number: 91
Vote Date: March 23, 2013, 04:30 AM

Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 139 to S.Con.Res. 8 (No short title on file)

Statement of Purpose: To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

Vote Counts: YEAs 53
NAYs 46
Not Voting 1

It's one of the oldest tricks in the book, perpetrated by (D)'s and (R)'s...put forth an amendment to an important matter (1) to an unrelated matter (2) that makes something (1) appear to be desirable or undesirable.

The sole purpose of this amendment was to make it seem that those voting against it are against the 2A. In reality, those were voted NO did so to uphold the treaty and its intended purpose.

Dad29 said...

There's nothing in the treaty that compromises American sovereignty

You have cites, of course.

And you DO understand that if Baldwin is for X, actual Americans are automatically AGAINST X.

That treaty's been around for years and no Senate--NONE--has ever voted for it.

So Tammy's vote FOR it, well...speaks for itself and for my conclusion above.

Jim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim said...

The "resolution" that Anonymous 4/15/13 1:32 PM refers to is the UN Resolution, not the congressional one that the Senator voted against.

See, the UN treaty is to control the export and traffic of military weapons to banana republics. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the right to keep and bear arms in the US or any other nation.

Dad29 said...

Banana republics like Israel?

Do you have any idea--at all--to whom US small-arms mfgr's are selling to?

And are you telling me that no one should have been selling arms to Chavez? Castro? Kim Jung Un?

Anonymous said...

Saddam?

Anonymous said...

Should they?