Tomorrow the SCOTUS is going to start to review if international treaty can overrule the Constitution of the United States. This will affect all current and future considerations of what is the “law of the Land.” If Roberts rolls over again, then the UN’s Small Arms Treaty can be allowed violate our Second Amendment rights, as well as what will happen with the effect of all UN and World Court decisions on every other current national law and regulations. What this is all about you might ask?:
When the United States joins a treaty, does the Constitution allow Congress to pass laws to implement that treaty that would normally be unconstitutional? That’s what the Supreme Court will consider this week in Bond v. U.S….(Snip)
Bond certainly committed crimes—state crimes such as trespass, battery, and maybe even attempted murder (though it appears Bond intended only to punish Haynes, not kill her). Bond was instead convicted for violating a law that Congress passed to implement the Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty the U.S. Senate ratified in 1997.
On appeal, Bond’s lawyers argued that Congress’ statute implement that treaty violated the Tenth Amendment—that this was a state matter for local law enforcement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that citizens like Bond lack standing to assert the state sovereignty aspect of the Tenth Amendment.
Supreme Court superstar Paul Clement took the case, and the Supreme Court granted review. In 2011 in the first case entitled Bond v. U.S., the justices held that American citizens do have legal standing to raise the Tenth Amendment as a defense in court.
The case went back to the lower courts, which acknowledged Bond’s defense but reaffirmed her conviction nonetheless, holding that it did not violate the Tenth Amendment.
Now the Supreme Court has granted review again in Bond II. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution sets forth the powers of Congress; any provision of a federal law not authorized by one of the 18 clauses of Section 8 is unconstitutional. The Obama administration is arguing that if the United States enters into a treaty, the federal government can enact laws to implement the treaty that would otherwise be unconstitutional.
So the question in this case is whether the Treaty Clause of the Constitution somehow empowers the federal government to escape the Constitution’s limits on federal lawmaking authority. It is a very important case on the scope of reach of federal power, with implicating for proposed treaties on gun control, limits on parental authority, and state sovereignty.
Make no mistake, that if the Robert’s Court again ignores the Constitution and past law (as they did in the Obamacare ruling,) in order this time to support international political supremacy over the Constitution, then they will put a final nail in the coffin of this Constitutional Republic. If the United Nations is granted supremacy over the Constitution, then the law of the land is null and void, as it is malleable to the whims of unelected foreign ambassadors, most of whom hate the USA with a passion.
So, we must watch carefully to see if the SCOTUS will throw out the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. IF they do so, we will suddenly become subjects under the supreme rule of the UN and any other international treaty body that the US is signatory to. The Obama Administration is arguing in favor of World Dominance over this nation and making the Constitution inferior.