While President Obama had not yet signed the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty as predicted when this issue of TGM went to press, the specter of the UN influence on US gun rights continues to trouble many in Congress.
In addition to legislative remedies which have been advanced in Congress to protect the Second Amendment rights of Americans, Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) has proposed securing those and other rights through the constitutional amendment process.
Culberson, with at least five other representatives as co-sponsors, has introduced H.Con. Res. 53 to deal with the threat of the UN treaty affecting American gun rights as well as H.J.Res. 54 to clarify and insure the supremacy of the US Constitution and American case law over foreign secular and religious laws. With H.J. Res. 54, Culberson already had four co-sponsors.
H.Con.Res. 53 proposes an amendment to the US Constitution regarding the effect of treaties, Executive orders, and agreements with other nations or groups of nations.
It’s language reads: “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification: “Article— “No treaty, Executive order, or any agreement with any nation or group of nations or any of the provisions of such agreements, shall be construed to diminish any of the rights or privileges guaranteed to citizens of the United States under the Constitution of the United States, and Federal law.”
H.J.Res. 54 reads: “Article— “Section 1. Any legal opinion or ruling issued by any court in the United States, including those rulings and opinions issued by the Supreme Court of the United States, shall be based only on the United States Constitution, or on duly enacted statutes and domestic case law of the United States or any State and shall not be based on international laws, treaties, or religious laws.
“Section 2. Any action of a court in violation of section 1 is null and void.” While the legislative remedies proposed by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) and Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) offer some quick remedies they are not as permanent a fix as that offered by Constitutional amendments. On the other hand, the amendment is slower.
In addition to requiring approval by two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate, an amendment to the Constitution requires the approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures, a process that could take years, but would certainly provoke a broader public debate.
