examiner.com - Monday’s Presidential debate question:Will you sign UN gun ban treaty?

[majstoll]

http://www.examiner.com/article/mon...te-question-will-you-sign-a-un-gun-ban-treaty

SNIP

The last of three Presidential debates will be held on Monday, October 22. The topic: Foreign Policy.

Why is this foreign policy debate the perfect forum to ask the Presidential candidates – point blank – will you sign a UN gun ban treaty? Because a major component of any nation’s “foreign policy” is participation in international treaties.

. . .

A state law beats a federal law enacted outside the constitutional power of the federal government like paper beats rock. But that same federal law, if enacted pursuant to a treaty, beats state law like rock beats scissors.

 

[marine 97-03]

If you watched the last debate that should tell you where they stand.....if Obama does like he said there will at least be more legislation coming down the pipe....if not the UN ban

 

[Salmoneye]

The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2)

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

 

[Midwest]

I was under the impression that the UN 'ban' bit the dust. We just had a whole thread about it recently about someone complaining about THR censoring the UN gun ban story and the UN gun ban didn't pass and it was not supposed to affect private ownership of guns in this country.

 

[Ryanxia]

It has been shot down but like the 'cyber security bill' they can always keep trying. Constant vigilance is the only way to keep what little freedoms we have left.

 

[mgkdrgn]

He can "sign" a ham sandwich, but that doesn't make it "law" until 2/3 of the Senate approves. Do the phrase "fat chance" ring a familiar tune?

 

[Frank Ettin]

The treaty has been kicking around for some years and hasn't been getting anywhere.

Old news at this point.