When I first read about this UN Treaty I thought it was a good idea, I mean who wants to help terrorists get weaponry like arms or jet fighters, or launchers for grenades. The treaty is intended to work from country to country- and it isn’t about Gun rights in the US. So I was completely okay with it.
Then I read a little more about what was going on. Now the US supposedly has rules that regulate what kind of weapons are allowed to be sold by US companies on the market anyhow…so as Kerry says we have a history of not selling arms across government borders anyhow…but that isn’t exactly true. For example the US is and has said it was going to help arm the rebels in Syria. If we send them weapons then would we be voiding the treaty?
Apparently the answer is no. We can, as a country choose to encourage other groups, whether they are part of existing governments or rebels who want democratic governments. So what the Arms Trade Treaty actually does is sort of confusing on it’s first read. We want to restrain the ability of bad people to purchase weapons but we also want to sell weapons to other nations. If it seems a little confusing to you too I’m glad.
If we delve in a little more we’ve got another big question popping up and that is why is Kerry signing a UN treaty without the approval of Congress? Well, Kerry is acting for the President, and the President is allowed to create treaties when they have to do with foreign countries because most of the Constitution refers to laws taking place in America! Of course America is always dealing with foreign countries so we can’t say that the President is the only person with power over relations with foreign governments,but his decisions do have a certain power. They can and have been seen by the Supreme court as Supreme Laws of the land, but remember, there are restrictions on that power.
In a very large sense the President can’t sign treaties all by himself, but as I said,l sometimes, with something called the sole-executive clause, he can make decision all on his own, the good news is these are decisions which are either ratified by Congress, or they change with the new President.
Or I’m totally wrong, because heck, who am I? This stuff is awful confusing.
I think I’ve got it a little bit though. Kerry can sign whatever Obama allows him to sign while Obama is in the White House. It isn’t necessarily going to hold up to our highest court’s scrutiny. Obama knows that. So why is he doing it? So is he doing it to strengthen the UN? I sort of think so. I think this is a sign that the most powerful, military government in the world is working with the UN.
Now the question is Is that a good thing? Or a bad thing?
Senator Corker has apparently written Obama a nice letter telling him that he has no right to sign this treaty. You would think that these guys would have some of their trusted employees do some research on what Presidents are allowed to do before they say they aren’t allowed to do things.
The good news about this treaty is it has nothing at all to do with gun owners in the United States of America, unless you happen to be a criminal racketeer selling arms to other countries, and if that is true, it isn’t likely you are going to have a whole lot of your fellow Americans backing up your right to do so.