Firearms and the Constitution Versus Treaties

The author of this article is incorrect. where Article VI clause 2 states - "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

It is referring to anything in the individual states' Constitutions or laws.....Meaning the States laws or Constitutions can not supersede the U.S. constitution.

I do not believe that this clause has anything to do with FOREIGN treaties at all, it has to do with treaties being made between the Federal and individual State governments.

seems to me that most have forgotten that in the constitution there is no provision for "law enforcement agencies" we the people are the enforcers of the laws of which we make. Therefore it is our obligation and duty to arrest and try by jury and convict all ellected that violate the constitution. We know that the "law enforcement agencies" will not because they believe they work for the elected eliets.

Great article!
Thanks for writing an excellent, concise explanation of something that one would expect any serious jurist to understand and, about which, there should be no debate. Sadly, that is just not the case because so many people want to tack their personal agenda onto the Constitution.

Thanks again!

As a previous post mentioned, he Founders set up the Senate and the President to be elected by delegates of the legislatures of the states. Therefore the treaties entered into would be agreeable to all the states. As you all know(or should know) the states have lost ALL Just representation in the Senate and the Presidency. We no longer elect those offices the way the Founders intended.

Great article. I love how clear things look when you bother to pull back the curtains of confusion.

I have something important to add though. Art. I sec 8 must always be added to the equation. Some may use you're insight to point out that "therefore the Federal Government has all Authority over the States (these united states), even over the Constitutions of the individual States". In truth this is true, but this does not make the 10th amendment void as some may claim. The Federal Government and it's laws ARE supreme, but only in such areas as they have been given specific enumerated power.

They try to convince us they can give our water to UN and our parks, now all deserts. They try to feed us cloned beef, milk revved up with Human growth hormone, and plants spliced with insect dna. Our Bee's are dying, our people are sick, and the healthy to take care of us sit out of work. They will make US work platationions like China if we continue to support slave owners.

Seems to me that in "under that Authority" another preposition, "under," underscores the point that any treaties fall below The Constitution.

Also taking the case to the absurd helps drive the point home on a more theoretical level. A treaty could be signed which says "everybody has to give their stuff to Belgium then go drown in a lake." Could the intent have been for that to become law without recourse or appeal? If the answer is "no" then well where do you draw the line happy and absurd treaties? Where the government unilaterally deems auspicious or... the Constitution?

Nice to know politicians got my panties in a twist again all over nothing.

Nice article.

Because the Second Amendment, like other amendments in the Bill of Rights, is a restraint on federal power, the federal government cannot use the treaty power to circumvent a limitation placed on its powers. That would make a clause in the Constitution superior to the Constitution itself. Thus, the federal government cannot bind the American people, their individual rights, or their property, through a treaty.

Edmund Randolph, Governor of the Virginia, and a delegate to the Federal [Constitutional] Convention of 1788 made the following statement concerning the federal government’s treaty power during the debates in the Virginia Ratifying Convention:

“I conceive that neither the life nor property of any citizen, nor the particular right of any state, can be affected by a treaty.”

George Nicholas stated that the federal government could not make any treaty that embraced objects not within the scope of its delegated powers:

“The provision of the 6th article is, that this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all the treaties made or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. They can, by this, make no treaty which shall be repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution, or inconsistant with the delegated powers. The treaties they make must be under the authority of the United States, to be within their province. It is sufficiently secured, because it only declares that, in pursuance of the powers given, they shall be the supreme law of the land, notwithstanding any thing in the Constitution or laws of the particular states.”

Mr. Corbin asserted that the treaty power pertained to the States:

“But, say gentlemen, all treaties made under this Constitution are to be the supreme law of nations; that is, in their way of construction, paramount to the Constitution itself, and the laws of Congress. It is as clear as that two and two make four, that the treaties are to be binding on the states only.”

Mr. Corbin’s observation was in total harmony with the Constitution. Since the Constitution is a compact between the individual States, not the people, as comprising one nation, it follows that the treaty power would be confined to the States. This is further verified by the fact that the treaty making power is vested in the Senate and the President. [See Article II, Clause 2] The Senate, as originally conceived, is the representative of the States and was appointed directly by the legislatures of the several States. The President is elected by electors appointed in a manner prescribed by the legislatures of the several States. Thus, the power to make treaties is within the exclusive control of the States. The House of Representatives, the so-called voice of the people, is excluded from the treaty making process.

If the treaty power was as extensive as some believe, then a corrupt President, with the aid of a sympathetic Senate, could conspire with a foreign power or entity, like the United Nations, and nullify the Constitution. Thus, they could dissolve the Union and make the States subject to a foreign jurisdiction. James Madison, in the Virginia debates referenced above stated: “[t]he power of making treaties does not involve a right of dismembering the Union.”

The Founders intended the treaty power, for the most part, to pertain to war, peace and commerce with foreign nations. Since the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not within that sphere of power or the general powers delegated to the federal government, it cannot be constitutionally abrogated through a treaty.