Tennessee approves bill to block international treaties that limit gun rights

[RamRoddoc]

http://www.guns.com/2016/04/08/tenn...t-international-treaties-limiting-gun-rights/

 

[Ringleader]

http://www.guns.com/2016/04/08/tenn...t-international-treaties-limiting-gun-rights/

Sad we even have to pass legislation like this; our constitution is pretty explicit about treaties and separately, the 2A.

 

[RamRoddoc]

Sad we even have to pass legislation like this; our constitution is pretty explicit about treaties and separately, the 2A.

There seems to be some disagreement if a ratified treaty supercedes our constitution.



I for one won't tolerate the supreme law of the land to be nullified via an international treaty as rights are inalienable. The government cannot legally grant nor take them legally or under the color of law.

However, the left's ludicrous hypothesis that contained within our bill of rights, is a state's right to create an Army and the 2A was not a "right" bestowed to the individual citizen. Four "Supreme" educated idiots in robes argued this contention, five thought not.

It will only take one more judge to re-interpret our constitution for us poor ignorant fools...

 

[jlw]

I am well aware of the text of the Second Amendment; so, there is no need to post it in response. My post should not be construed to be in support of such treaties. I merely post the following passage from the Constitution for academic purposes.

The text of the Supremacy Clause (Article VI):

"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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

 

[RamRoddoc]

I am well aware of the text of the Second Amendment; so, there is no need to post it in response. My post should not be construed to be in support of such treaties. I merely post the following passage from the Constitution for academic purposes.

The text of the Supremacy Clause (Article VI):

"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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

I understand that precedent is our Constitution, next our laws-as long as they don't conflict with-the constitution, then lastly treaties-as long as the don't conflict with the constitution or laws of the United States.

I don't think I got this wrong.

Our constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land", period, unless we amend it, not by color of law or treaty. But some will argue that point of contention.