Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report


Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2012)
Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Order Book





The Founding Fathers knew that the latch pin to liberty would
always be the key to the right of the American citizen to own,
carry and use firearms. The US Supreme Court in Miller v United
States in 1939, knew that as well. In one of the few 2nd Amend-
ment cases to end up before the high court. Associate Justice
William O. Douglas (an FDR appointee) noted, for the record, that
the Founding Fathers intended that the phase dealing with a well
armed militia referred to the general public not the State militia.
Douglas said (paraphrased) "...the States (and the People) viewed
the federal government as more of a threat to liberty than any
foreign invader."

Justice Douglas' whole statement was "...based on the privileges standardized by the States in the 18th century, the general public—not State-controlled militas—has to be as well-armed as its central government since the people, and the States, view the federal government as much, if not more, a threat to liberty than any foreign intruder on American soil.

It was that case, Miller v United States that determined gun rights foes in the federal government to do their best to keep all gun rights cases out of the Supreme Court. When District of Columbia v Heller arrived at the Supreme Court after DC's gun ban was struck down when the US District Court for DC's decision to overturn the gun ban was upheld by the US Court of Appeals, gun advocates and gun foes both were holding their breathe. The DC government was convinced Heller would be overturned because the right of cities to ban firearms was, in their view, settled law. Instead, the high court ruled that municipalities could not enact laws that supersede the Bill o Rights.

When the Clintons arrived in Washington so did UN Resolution 9, the UN's Global Gun Ban Treaty began making its way across Europe and, one by one, the nations of Europe signed it, surrendering the rights of their citizens to own firearms of any type. As the Treaty headed towards the US Senate in 1997, British Prime Minister Tony Blair (who would lose his job because of his position) led the Labor Party to a 384 to 181 vote victory to ban the private ownership of guns in England. Brits were given 120 days to surrender any handguns they owned and most rifles and all but the most primitive shotguns to British authorities. Australia and Canada followed.

The US Senate was supposed to debate the UN Global Gun Ban in October, 1997, but it never showed up. It simply vanished off the horizon. When she saw the sleight-of-hand, Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth-Hage [R-ID], who was preparing for her third and final congressional race, proffered a Constitutional amendment in the waning days of the 105th Congress—the American Sovereignty Amendment—that would have prevented any treaty which contained language implying that any foreign power or international organization's laws or regulations were equal to, or legally superior in matters of domestic jurisdiction over US law and/or the United States Constitution, the US Senate could not vote on that treaty or law until that language was struck from the document being considered to protect both the internal and external sovereignty of the United States of America.

In a Congress in which both Houses were controlled by the Republicans, Chenoweth could not get enough support from Republicans to move the resolution to the floor for a vote. The American Sovereignty Amendment died from lack of interest. Chenoweth knew that if the Senate of any future liberal president ratified what was, at that time, the UN Global Gun Ban Treaty and is now the UN Small Arms Treaty, that a 1937 Supreme Court decision dealing with a dispute between Mexico and the United States over the Migratory Bird Treaty of 1916 could very well topple the 2nd Amendment.

The Migratory Bird Treaty divided birds into three categories: game birds, insectivores (which are protected by the treaty and cannot be killed), and song birds which are protected because they are pretty and sound nice. Conservationists, with the help of Sen. Elijah Root [D-NY] structured the treaty to protect migratory birds from hunters. When the State of Missouri authorized the heating of birds native to Missouri but which migrated to Mexico during the winter, the conservationists sued. Root acted as their lawyer before the Supreme Court. Missouri argued that, under the 10th Amendment, they had the right to hunt Missouri birds in Missouri. Root argued that Article Vi of the Constitution trumped the 10th Amendment. The paragraph in Article VI that trumped the 10th Amendment (which keeps all rights not specifically delegated to the central government by the Constitution for the States)? "The Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or what shall be made, under authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. And the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

What does that mean? It means that the US Supreme Court, in 1937, said that Treaties supersede the Bill of Rights.

Oh, by the way. Did you see the poll taken over the weekend (Oct. 28-29, 2011) that indicated if the Election of 2012 was held today, that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would beat all takers—most of them most decisively. When the UN Small Arms Treaty draft was completed on May 19, 2010, Hillary Rodham Clinton quietly, and with absolutely no media fanfare to draw attention to herself, she did what a Secretory of State is now allowed to do—she signed the treaty. Under US law, only the President can sign a treaty since, under US Constitutional law, a signature on the physical treaty signifies "ratification." While we think of the US Senate as ratifying the treaty, what they are doing in point of fact, is affirming their willingness to see it ratified. When the treaty is signed, it is ratified. The last Treaty ratified without a presidential signature affixed was the Kyoto Protocol, which the US Senate, in a vote of 98 to 0 told Bill Clinton would be rejected.

Vice President Al Gore signed the protocol, binding the United States to the climate change treaty. This devise is part of the universal common law recognized by The World Court, and binding on all nations that was composed in 1758 by the best legal mind of that time, Emer de Vattel. The text is known as The Law of Nations. Clinton knew her signature on the UN Small Arms Treaty would put into motion a court battle for which a precedent to overrule the 2nd Amendment has existed since 1937.


Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved