Bond vs. U.S.--Can Treaties Usurp The Constitution?

[3rdnlng]

https://bay173.mail....215ad7dba2&fv=1

 

"Every now and then, news breaks in the Obama administration that is so stereotypical, it is actually depressing. You might want to sit down for this.

Attorney General Eric Holder, made infamous by Operation Fast and Furious, is currently arguing before the Supreme Court that United Nations treaties trump the United States Constitution.

That’s right. The sitting Attorney General, charged with upholding and defending the Constitution, is arguing before the highest court that international law is in fact the law of the land.

The case in question, Bond v. United States, is actually pretty ridiculous. The defendant is charged with using a toxic substance to harass a friend who was having an affair with her husband. Under the law, this case would normally be handled at the State-level. But Federal prosecutors instead charged Bond with violating the Chemical Weapons Convention. This would be like taking a perpetrator of a domestic hate crime and instead charging him or her with genocide.

This case is basically a complex liberal experiment to see how far they can push the boundaries regarding the enforcement of international law. An Obama administration victory in this case could have huge ramifications for other contentious issues like abortion, citizenship, and even the Second Amendment.

It’s no secret that the Obama administration is looking to enact gun control by any means necessary. That means exhausting all options. The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty would provide an excellent way to limit Americans’ access to firearms without dealing with Congress. The problem is, the treaty cannot become law without the Senate ratifying it (which won’t happen). If the Supreme Court rules in Obama’s favor, the U.N. Arms Treaty could become the law of the land anyway.

The funny thing is that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty specifically prohibits the exportation of small arms to countries if there is a reasonable expectation that they would be used against civilians. If Holder wins this case and ushers in the implementation of the treaty, his involvement in Fast and Furious, leading to the death of countless Mexican civilians, would make him an international criminal.

But since Holder would be in charge of investigating himself for international crimes, he’d likely be acquitted…

All jokes aside, Bond v. United States represents a grave risk to the sovereignty of this great country and the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution. Everyone always posits that the liberals want to replace the Constitution with U.N. law, but no one actually expected them to try to."

 

For more detailed analysis:

http://www.heritage....he-treaty-power

Edited November 13, 2013 by 3rdnlng

[Nanker]

Virtually any treaty puts the signing parties government in a subordinate role to that of the international obligation.

Past practice when a country - including the US - didn't like the terms anymore, it would be torn up and ignored.

See Hitler's honoring of the Munich accord.

[B-Man]

................and before we get the simplistic, "Heritage Foundation/Right wing source" silliness.

 

The case is a matter of public record.

 

You may not care for the slant that the author put in the article, but the fact that Mr. holder and the DOJ are arguing this is the only important point.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

A treaty approved by Congress is the law of the land. And I believe the CWC had congressional approval. The article's "specious" (bull ****, actually).

 

So's the case, of course - the CWC is an international treaty binding nations, not a question of criminal law. DOJ has no standing in this case.