Attorney General Eric Holder recently argued before the Supreme Court that International treaties trump the United States Constitution.
Right now Congress is debating whether to give President Obama Fast Track Trade Authority, aka the unlimited and unconstitutional power to negotiate international treaties, specifically for the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement. Washington power brokers and politicians continue to claim that such treaties would never, ever trump U.S. law. But here's the problem, they apparently forgot to tell Barack Obama and Eric Holder:
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.
If the Courts rule that international law is law of the land, and if the Executive branch is more than willing to implement this ruling, then only the Congress can stand against this rising tyranny.
A lot of times, Congress’ power can be overstated. But the Constitution’s system of checks and balances exist for a reason. If one or two branches of government fall to tyranny, then a third branch would still remain to herald the cause of liberty. With the way the Supreme Court has been ruling lately, and Obama’s burning desire to shred the Constitution, the Congress is all that stands between state sovereignty and global governance.
Unfortunately more often than not, Congressmen and Senators wouldn’t recognize creeping tyranny if it slapped them in the face.
That’s where we come in. Believe it or not, we have reached a point in our history where we actually have to plead with our representatives to defend the Constitution from its domestic and foreign enemies.
If the Supreme Court rules in the administration’s favor, you can say hello to universal weapons registration. You want to buy a firearm? Good luck explaining why you really need one. And good luck getting your hands on one of those imported World War II rifles you’ve had your eye on.
Most of the time, slippery slope arguments are overblown. But there’s no exaggeration to this. Even when the Senate refused to ratify the U.N. Arms Treaty, Obama had Secretary of State John Kerry sign it anyway. Talk about defiance!
The only thing that stands between Kerry’s signature and Obama’s gun control agenda is that pesky piece of parchment called the Constitution. And if the Supreme Court rules in Obama’s favor, you can kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye.
If you value your second amendment rights, or any of your rights for that matter, stand and fight. Urge Congress to honor its oath and reject Obama’s globalist ambitions.
Written by Joe Otto.
NOTE: The case of BOND v. UNITED STATES was completed as of June 2, 2014:
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Argued November 5, 2013
Decided June 2, 2014
Bond v. United States, (2014) is a follow-up to the Supreme Court’s 2011 case of the same name. The 2011 case found that individuals as well as states can bring a Tenth Amendment challenge to federal law. The case was remanded from the Supreme Court to the Third Circuit for decision on the merits, and the Third Circuit found against Bond. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that the Chemical Warfare Act (CWA) did not reach Bond’s actions, thus she could not be charged.
This time, (thank God), the Supreme Court did not agree with the Department of Justice's argument in favor of ditching U.S. law; however the Obama Administration's actions reveal just how dangerous these international treaties are to America sovereignty - and just how far this President will go to put the United States under international law.
America simply cannot allow Congress to grant Obama Fast Track Trade Authority, and we absolutely must stop the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement.