What's the ATT about? It's about gun control on all UN members, pure and simple. Agree with gun control or not, such a treaty comes in direct conflict with the US Constitution - and not just the 2nd Amendment. Besides being an encroahment into the liberties of US citizens - already at risk with this administration, the ATT is fundmentally flawed as with every other method of gun control proposed by the progressive element of the political spectrum. That is, the lawful nations will abide and the unlawful ones will not. Just as criminals pay no attention to US gun control laws and honest citizens do. So, the end result will be that the honest are more defenseless against the bad guys. Click Here to read the proposed treaty.
Sen. Coker of Tennessee has sent a letter to Obama stressing that such a treaty, without the advice and consent of the US Senate and approval by the House, is dead against the US Constition and other federal law(s). And, the letter informs Obama that that any executive actions, in effect, taken by the executive branch, in support of this treaty, basically, would be illegal. See the letter and the story here.
What's the real problem here? The United States is bound by a properly executed and signed treaty. However, any treaty does NOT take precedence over our Constitution as some in the current administration seem to feel.
Article VI of the US Costitition, in part, reads: "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."
However, Article Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate. The actual text is: [The President] shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...
The U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged the supremacy of the Constitution over both a treaty and any law passed and signed:
It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.
This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument. Reid v. Covert
The current administration continues to waste time, energy, and money trying the very best it can to diminish the freedoms of the American people and the validity of our laws. When is enough, well, enough?