28 votes

Judge Napolitano On UN Arms Treaty: 'A Treaty Cannot Trump A Constitutional Right'


On Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry signed the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, designed to regulate international weapons trade. It immediately caused some, however, to worry that it could take away parts of our own Second Amendment rights.

"The fact that John Kerry signed the treaty is just symbolic," Judge Andrew Napolitano said on Fox and Friends on Thursday. "The treaty would have no effect on the United States unless and until it's ratified by two-thirds of the United States Senate, which is a near impossibility."

Napolitano also added that what could be impacted by the treaty includes the ability of importers to import certain amounts of ammunition and weapons from other countries.

What it could not affect, however, is a citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

"A treaty cannot trump an expressed right in the Constitution," he said.

So, why all the worry? The judge explains.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Just a few days before Kerry signed the treaty I posted this...

"The world is getting played right now, big time.

The winner in the Syria 'chemical weapons' incident, that was staged by the Globalists, is... the Globalists!

I said it over & over to all of DP that Obama & Putin are working together, for the NWO.

What happened?

They came together on an agreement, over the threat of WW3. And the precedent that was set, was that the U.N. gains even more power & the ability to confiscate a nation's weapons arsenal.

That is a total violation of national sovereignty. It is by all means, an ACT of WAR! Waged by the United Nations, supported by Obama & Putin regimes.

I oppose their U.N. "solution", to the 'problem, reaction...'.

It was clearly one of the globalists' goals the whole time. They at least got to move their piece on the chess board. It is also clear, that Assad was used by the globalists, whether willingly, or unwittingly. I believe willingly, all along. He's a tool. He's playing his part. Don't forget that dinner meeting he had with Skull & Bones John Kerry a couple years ago.

Now, I oppose the U.N. dictating to Syria what weapons they can have. Just like I oppose the U.N. dictating to US, or Israel, or any other country, what weapons they can have.

This whole thing is like setting the precedent for the U.N. small arms ban. And now we are getting these planned shootings again, and another in Niyrobi, Kenya. It's all coming down the pike."

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Debbie's picture

Thank you Judge!



did they just

mentioned plans for a world government in the media?

Laws Against 2nd Amendment Can Not Be "Ratified" by the States.

"Ratifying" being a "MEANS" to Depart from the Original Compact and to Arrogate new Powers Outside the Delegated Powers and Against Essential Natural Rights protected whether or not it is written in the Constitution, voids any such ratification by the states.

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

Mr. EDMUND PENDLETON. Mr. Chairman, this clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of ANY PART of the Constitution,

(N)or to make "ANY REGULATION" that (EVEN) "MAY" affect the interests of the citizens of the "UNION AT LARGE".

But it gives them (federal legislature) power over the local police of the "PLACE" (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC), so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings.

Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the "fair CONSTRUCTION of the clause".

It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case "WITHIN" "THAT" DISTRICT (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC).

What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to?

Is it opposed to the general powers of the federal legislature, or to those of the state legislatures?

I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state WHERE IT SHALL BE (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC).

What, then, is the power?

It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate "THERE" (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC), in order to preserve {440} serve the police of the "PLACE" (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC) and their "OWN" "PERSONAL" independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state where it shall be, this is the "fair CONSTRUCTION".

Can we suppose that, in order to effect these salutary ends, Congress will make it an asylum for villains and the vilest characters from "ALL PARTS OF THE WORLD"?

Will it not degrade their own dignity to make it a sanctuary for villains?

I hope that no man that will ever "compose" that Congress will associate with the most profligate characters.

(APP: If this was not such a sad statement, it would be funny)

Why oppose this power? Suppose it was contrary to the sense of their constituents to grant exclusive privileges to citizens residing within that place; the effect would be directly in opposition to what he says.

It (The Federal Government) could have "NO OPERATION WITHOUT" (OUTSIDE) the limits of "THAT" DISTRICT. (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC)

Were Congress to make a law granting them an "exclusive privilege" of trading to the East Indies, it could have "NO EFFECT" the moment it would go without that place; (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC)

for their "exclusive power" (SUPREMACY) is confined to "THAT" DISTRICT. (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC)

Were they to pass such a law,it would be NUGATORY; (VOID)

and every member of the community at large could trade to the East Indies as well as the citizens of "THAT DISTRICT" (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC).

This exclusive (SUPREMACY) power is "LIMITED" to "THAT PLACE SOLELY" (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC), for their OWN preservation, which all gentlemen allow to be necessary.

Will you pardon me when I observe that their construction of the preceding clause does not appear to me to be natural, or warranted by the words.

They say that the state governments have no power at all over the militia. The power of the general government to provide for arming and organizing the militia is to introduce a uniform system of discipline to pervade the United States of America. But the power of governing the militia, so far as it is in Congress, extends only to such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.

When not in their service, Congress has "NO POWER" to govern them.

The states then have the "SOLE" government of them; and though Congress "may" provide for arming them, and prescribe the "mode" of discipline, yet the STATES have the Authority of training them, according to the uniform discipline prescribed by Congress.

But there is "NOTHING" to preclude them (THE STATES) from "ARMING" and disciplining them, should Congress NEGLECT to, do it.

As to calling the militia to execute the laws of the {441} Union, I think the fair construction is directly opposite to what the honorable member says.

The 4th section of the 4th article contains nothing to warrant the supposition that the states cannot call them forth to suppress domestic insurrections. [Here he read the section.]

All the restraint here contained is, that Congress may, at their pleasure, on "APPLICATION of the STATE legislature", or "(in vacation)" of the executive, protect each of the states against domestic violence.

This is a restraint on the general (FEDERAL) government "NOT TO INTERPOSE".

The "state" is in "full possession" of the "power" of using its "own militia" to protect itself against domestic violence; and the power in the general (FEDERAL) government "CANNOT BE EXERCISED, or INTERPOSED", without the "application of the STATE ITSELF". This appears to me to be the "obvious" and "fair construction".

With respect to the necessity of the TEN MILES SQUARE (Washington, DC) being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof",

I understand that clause as NOT going a "SINGLE STEP BEYOND" the "DELEGATED powers".

What can it act upon? Some power given by "THIS" Constitution.

If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers",

but can by "NO" >>>>>>>"MEANS" DEPART from them,

>>>>>>>(N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers;

for the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers"."



There is "NOTHING" in "that paper"(APP Note: referring to the US Constitution being considered) to warrant the assertion.

As to the exclusion of a jury from the vicinage, he has mistaken the fact. The legislature may direct a jury to come from the vicinage. But the gentleman says that, by this Constitution, they have power to make laws to define crimes and prescribe punishments; and that, consequently, we are not free from torture.

a.) Treason against the United States is defined in the Constitution, and the forfeiture limited to the life of the person attainted.

Congress have power to define and punish:

b.) piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and
c.) offenses against the laws of nations;

but they (APP: the federal government, Executive, legislature or supreme court) CANNOT "DEFINE" or "PRESCRIBE" the PUNISHMENT of "ANY OTHER CRIME >>>WHATEVER", >>>>>>>WITHOUT "VIOLATING the CONSTITUTION".

(APP Note: See this also in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions - Kentucky Resolutions par. #2 - http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates - This can be no clearer, the federal government and all those officials and citizens who support or allow others to be prosecuted under any "other crimes and punishments" not listed are in DIRECT VIOLATION to the Constitution they claim to uphold.)

If we had no security against torture but our declaration of rights, we might be tortured to-morrow; for it has been repeatedly infringed and disregarded.

A bill of rights is only an acknowledgment of the "PREEXISTING CLAIM TO RIGHTS IN THE PEOPLE".

They BELONG TO US AS MUCH as if they had been inserted in the Constitution. (APP Note: Which they eventually were)

But it is said that, if it be doubtful, the possibility of dispute ought to be precluded. Admitting it was proper for the Convention to have inserted a bill of rights, it is not proper here to propose it as the condition of our accession to the Union. Would you reject this government for its omission, dissolve the Union, and bring miseries on yourselves and posterity? I hope the gentleman does not oppose it on this ground solely. Is there another reason? He said that it is not only the general wish of this state, but all the states, to have a bill of rights. If it be so, where is the difficulty of having this done by way of subsequent amendment? We shall find the other states willing to accord with their own favorite wish.

The gentleman last up says that the power of legislation includes every thing.

A "general" power of legislation does. But this is a "SPECIAL" power of legislation.

Therefore, it does "NOT" contain that plenitude of power which he imagines.

They (The Federal Legislatures, Executive or Supreme Court) "CANNOT LEGISLATE" in "ANY case" but those "PARTICULARLY ENUMERATED" (DELEGATED)."


See also Federalist #46 by James Madison as to the Definition of MILITIA. On APP FRONT WEB PAGE.


American Patriot Party.CC


Also review the "Absolute Rights of The Colonists, 1772; by Samuel Adams, as to RESERVING the "MEANS" of "SELF PRESERVATION" the "FIRST LAW OF NATURE".

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Rights_of_the_Colonists/r...

1st. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.--

Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and DEFEND THEM in the BEST MANNER THEY CAN (THE "MEANS")--Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called "THE FIRST LAW OF NATURE"--

All Men have a Right to remain in a State of Nature as long as they please: And in case of intollerable Oppression, Civil or Religious, to leave the Society they belong to, and enter into another.--

When Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions, And previous limitations as form an equitable "ORIGINAL COMPACT".--

Every natural Right not expressly given up or from the nature of a (ORIGINAL) Social "COMPACT" "necessarily" ceded "REMAINS".--"

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

Daily Paul: http://www.dailypaul.com/user/14674

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

A Law Cannot Trump A

A Law Cannot Trump A Constitutional Right - Obamacare, NDAA, War on Syria (really Iran), etc.

The Judge is the Man....

Spot on as usual.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

I agree with Mr Napolitano

But I also believe that this has no bearing on what any branch of the Federal Government will do. Past performance can give evidence of future actions.

The judge

bringing it like a Boss as usual. I could see that the woman seemed to be learning something and wanted to know.



RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.



Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?