Hoping to clear up any Constitutional confusion
The News and Sentinel printed a letter to the editor on March 28 titled, “A constitutional explanation.” That letter was pure silliness from a writer who obviously has zero understanding of the U.S. Constitution. It completely distorted the meaning of Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution.
That letter writer’s mistake was adding his own interpretation to Article VI. In his March 28 letter he wrote, “When the United Nations Small Arms Treaty (UNSAT) is ratified it would become the supreme law of the land, circumventing the U.S. Constitution and eliminating the 2nd Amendment.”
Basically, that letter writer claims a foreign treaty ratified by the U. S. Senate can rewrite our Constitution. How absurd!
Get a copy of the U.S. Constitution and look at the multiple, complex steps required to amend that document.
Decades ago, my late wife and I spent a bucket of money sending our youngest son through law school. I asked my son’s opinion about the legal issues in that absurd March 28 letter. He told me that letter is (and I’m editing his comments here to remove all the profanity) “an incredible example of unbelievably confused thinking.”
When someone says a foreign treaty becomes the “supreme law of the land,” that’s not a literal definition. That’s a restatement of the simple fact that in nearly all cases federal law is supreme because it supersedes state law and federal law holds sway in most every issue concerning treaties.
Regardless of what happens to UNSAT in the future, our 2nd Amendment will continue to function, unchanged, as it has for the past 232 years.
That writer has been beating the UNSAT war-drum for 2 or 3 years, frequently quoting law he clearly doesn’t understand. He preaches that those evil liberal socialists are going to take our guns, any day now, and he’s been saying that for years.
He sounds foolish repeating that UNSAT garbage. He should find a new imaginary problem to frighten his followers.