Attorney General Eric Holder: UN treaties trump the US Constitution

Is there an amendment the Obama Administration hasn’t yet attacked? Well… to be fair… perhaps not the 18th.

From Conservative Daily:

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.

[…]

Read the rest there.

I can’t wait for 20 January 2017.  I need one of those countdown things.

Unless, of course, he succeeds in repealing the 22nd Amendment.

 

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Attorney General Eric Holder: UN treaties trump the US Constitution

  1. Sonshine135 says:

    Why are we surprised here? This administration attacks the sovereignty of the states under the 10th amendment consistently. A majority of Americans want someone who will do everything for them from cradle to grave. Why not just turn over everything to the UN. Heck, we could dissolve Congress, eliminate the judiciary, and Obama could be crowned king. I bet he’d get in more golf that way.

  2. Freeloading American society will just continue to foolishly elect the one that hands out the most to the brain dead mob.

  3. Maltese says:

    As long as they don’t overturn the 21st Amendment!

  4. vandalia says:

    I suggest you read the works of the Founding Fathers, because they clearly stated that Treaties are part of the Supreme Law of the Land.

    For example, many of the treaties with native Indian tribes called for the sending of federally funded, Christian missionaries to those tribes. This occurred both under the Articles of Confederation and after the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) were ratified. When it was argued that this was not permissible under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson argued that the Bill of Rights did not apply since this action was conducted under the terms of a ratified treaty.

    If you want to hear from the Supreme Court on this issue, I suggest you take a look at Missouri v Holland from 1920.

  5. wmeyer says:

    Another possible scenario is that Obama succeeds in provoking economic collapse before the 2016 election, declares martial law, and in the face of widespread rioting, suspends the election. I would not rule out congressional support, following a collapse of the economy.

  6. vandalia says:

    In case you are wondering, here is the text from the Treaty with the Kaskasia Tribe that Thomas Jefferson negotiated and used to circumvent the First Amendment to the Constitution:

    And whereas, The greater part of the said tribe have been baptised and received into the Catholic church to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for the said tribe the duties of his office and also to instruct as many of their children as possible in the rudiments of literature. And the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church.

    Again, when the anti-Catholics argued this was unconstitutional, Jefferson argued that the fact that the provision was negotiated in a treaty meant that the provisions of the Bill of Rights did not apply. This has since been modified by the US Supreme Court, but the fact remains that Treaties are part of the Supreme Law of the Land.

  7. inexcels says:

    Don’t get too excited about January 20, 2017, Father. Next election we’ll get Hillary Clinton, or someone equally odious. Might as well get mentally prepared for it now.

  8. av8er says:

    Vandalia, why would the supreme court hear the case if int’l treaties trump US Constitution? I think this has to do with affecting directly the lives of US citizens (not a nation of an tribe) based on extrernal treaties that this govmt signed.

  9. PA mom says:

    “Repealing the 22nd Amendment…”
    That is highly unlike to occur. The media is already laying the narrative of Clintons as the saviors of the nation’s healthcare. ‘Clinton tells Obama to keep his promise..’, etc.
    To my eyes, that is why they are suddenly allowing him to fall in public opinion.

  10. iPadre says:

    Impeachment and trial for treason!

  11. Poustinik1 says:

    If memory serves me, part of the Clinton’s platform when running was a national health care plan for America. It fizzled. We can still pray for God’s intervention. There is still the possibility of impeachment of Obama if America ever wakes up from its free goodies drug induced stupor.

  12. There is no need for Obama to have any part of the Constitution repealed: he can just go on ignoring it, like he’s been doing. He has already arrogated to himself Congress’ legislative powers via executive order; and he has usurped Congress’ powers to borrow and spend without too many people seeming to notice or care. He has made the Constitution irrelevant; and since he won’t be impeached as he deserves, Congress is effectively aiding and abetting.

    As for God’s intervention to put a stop to all this, I don’t see how we can expect it as long as we continue to promote and institutionalize sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance.

  13. Legisperitus says:

    Sometimes I wish Western civilization would just go ahead and collapse and make way for whatever is going to follow it. We know from history that the only thing to survive will be the Catholic Church, which as the one institution left standing should have a substantial role in building whatever comes next. But, all in God’s good time…

  14. Jack Hughes says:

    Miss Moore

    It’s not us promoting these sins, why do the innocent have to get caught up in the judgement of the guilty ?

  15. Angie Mcs says:

    Doesnt each country have to come to the UN table with a set of laws and beliefs that represent that country? Otherwise, we stand for nothing, and in that vacuum anything which the UN decides can be taken as our law. What is happening here is the slow, steady and sneaky disassembly of everything the United States stands for. And even sadder is the reaction, or lack of it, from so many of our citizens. As the liberals start counting their successes, we sit back, and let it happen. I cant understand this oblivion, lack of indignation and anger at our administration at what they are doing. Perhaps we have had it too good for too long, and cannot grasp thepossibility that what has happened in other countries can happen here. The things that Obama have been doing and getting away with continue to astound me. Yet if I speak to most people about these things, they basically shrug their shoulders and speak as if they arent concerned. Had this been any other President, at any other time, we would have already had congressional trials, shown on TV, as we did with Watergate and the Iran Contra affair. Oprah Winfrey screams that Obama is hated because he is black, yet it is because he is black that many people dont speak against him, for fear of being labled racist. Black or white, this man is causing great damage to this country and has surrounded himself with evil people who have no morals.
    I cant help but believe that something greater than politics is causing this to happen. I am beginning to see the hands of evil shaping these events, and closing Americans’ eyes to them. And what is waiting in the wings? As INEXCELS pointed out, we will almost certainly be offered Hillary Clinton next, the person who said ” What difference does it make? ” when she was under oath about Benghazi. Those callous words still ring in my ears, and I cannot understand why she is still considered such a viable candidate. Eric Holder is our Attorney General, the highest legal office in the land, and his words cannot be trusted- he should be held accountable for the ” Fast and Furious? debacle. Yet he is representing our country to the UN and the world. There are questions, so many questions, that have never been answered and are continually avoided, and I fear that in time we will stand for nothing. Obama whittles away steadily at our laws, whistling as he goes along, occasionally stopping to listen if there is any outcry. He hears nothing of consequence, so he continues. Soon what he has shaped will in no way resemble what we used to recognize as the United States of America. Yet it continues, on and on, and I can only think that truly a darkness is casting its shadow over this land.

  16. Jim R says:

    Actually it is not that far fetched an argument as you think – as every lawyer knows. Article VI of the Constitution itself names the Constitution and Treaties as the supreme law of the land – how to reconcile them is a bit of an issue – and always has been.

    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
    Article. VI.

    All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

  17. Toan says:

    There is a countdown timer out there, Father! Just google this: 20 January 2017 mycountdown

  18. Kathleen10 says:

    I note that Holland is mentioned, but Treaties made in the United States are one thing, Treaties made with other countries are another. Are they considered the same. There has been some attempt to honor international law in our United States, and of course, as day follows night, it’s liberals who want that to happen. Geez Louise it’s always liberals!
    Anyway these guys don’t need laws. As someone said they ignore the law now. They continue to get away with it. Many of us are holding on hoping for impeachment and then some…but…there are many glassy-eyed followers who not only don’t see a problem, they love the guy and will no matter what he does. No matter what. His takeover of the military is particularly troubling. He knows what he’s doing. Would the senate act? Not bloody likely! They’re in his camp. Can the House act alone? I don’t think so, but I don’t know.
    I hate to pile on, but add to that the new development of “Knockout Games”, and other bad portents in our population, and we have some problems. I think we’re all going to end up squeezed together in one state, maybe Texas! That will make it easier for them to round us up.
    Jesus, come to our rescue. St. Michael, protect us.

  19. Lin says:

    1156 days!! We cannot last that long. I fear that wmeyer scenario above will come to pass. Just imagine the demonic and evil meetings that are being held in the WH over this Obummerscare rollout! Desperate measures will be taken soon as BHO popularity continues to tank. Much prayer and fasting is required!

  20. Lin says:

    You very well could be right PA mom! BHO may have accomplished his goal and now it is time for Hillary to take us even further to the left. My fear is that, if we do have another free election, it will be rigged. GOD hears our cries for help!

  21. jhayes says:

    “imternational Law” and “Treaties made under the authority of the United States” are two different things. The only International Law that applies in the USA is that contained in a Treaty which has been negotiated by the President and ratified by the Senate. Typically, when the Senate ratifies a Treaty, it attaches a list of points with which it does not agree and which will not apply to the United States.

    We are only bound by such “International Law” as we have agreed to be bound by.

  22. Minnesotan from Florida says:

    I think I am not sufficiently expert in the details of the case at hand or the treaty that is involved. But it seems that this UN treaty does not have the involvement of the United States, whereas the treaties that have a force of law in the same way as the federal Constitution and Acts of Congress are treaties made under the authority of the United States – i.e., ones to which the United States is a party, ones which have been ratified by the United States. I should not think that a treaty proposed by the United Nations but not accepted or ratified by the United States would have the force of the Constitution or the laws enacted by Congress. At most it would have only the same force as the usual traditional International Law, based on custom. Surely membership in the UN does not make the United States bound by all laws promulgated by the UN. Else what is the meaning of the United States’ ratification or acceptance of, or participation in, UN treaties? (I.e., they would by our membership ipso facto be “approved” by us.) Please, someone give a knowledgeable explanation. I think of myself as being a good lawyer, but these matters are far afield for me.

  23. Jack Hughes, because we are all a part of this society, we will all share in its chastisements, just as we all share in its blessings.

  24. Michaeleus says:

    There won’t be a 2016 election.

  25. SKAY says:

    We need to vote the Democrats out of the leadership in the Senate in 2014. We are finding out how the Obama administration manipulated so much illegally within our government along with voting irregularities in many states to get themselves re-elected. Low information voters are easily manipulated. Now they have the Obamacare website to gather information on large groups of American citizens–and use it for their own purposes. The media and the Democrat campaign to label anyone who dares disagree with this President’s policies as racist is ridiculous — yet it worked to their advantage. We seem to be afraid to point out the log in their eye.
    Where is that video of Hillary as a NY Senator – when G. Bush was President – screaming at the top of her lungs that the opposite party had the right to disagree with ANY President’s policies and that it was even patriotic?
    Her Benghazi ” performance” was repugnant.
    After touting how much smarter the US State Dept. would be under the Democrats–The “reset button ” she presented to the Russians with the wrong Russian word on it was silly and embarrassing to this country. The former Sec. of State spoke Russian and would have recognized that mistake.
    Atheist, socialist, one world government promoter George Soros – and his billions- was behind Hillary’s election until he switched to Obama–who really suited his goals better. Now I believe he has switched back to Hillary–so because he funds so many Democrat tentacles–that is probably who the Democrat nominee will be. He also sent funds to Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and I know first hand(locally) who and what they were promoting before Obama’s first election. It is pretty clear what his motives are concerning the Church–world wide. Marginalize the Christian faith – a huge block in his path.
    Any Attorney General Obama nominates will agree with the Obama agenda. We see what kind of Supreme Court Judges he nominates.
    I do agree that we must pray every day.

  26. Kerry says:

    If the blue helmets were coming after him personally for complicity in the death of Mexican citizens, which side of the bread would the butter be on then?

  27. Pingback: THURSDAY MORNING EDITION | God & Caesar

  28. Jack Hughes says:

    well Ms Moore can’t God be more selective in his targeting? say blasting certain ‘catholic’ politicians into bits of gore and then rearranging said bits of gore to make it clear that he’s involved and that people better make the laws conform to God’s will, after all that is what happened to korah et al in numbers