Open Letter to Senator Warner re: Arms Trading Treaty

Dear Senator Warner:

I am in receipt of your correspondence by e-mail.  Thank you for responding.

 I have included at the end of this letter a copy of your response to my original correspondence so that you can refer to it. 

You make the point that Treaties do not trump the Constitution.  Let’s assume that is correct, in theory.  In practice they are viewed as Contracts whose termination provisions vary, and they are enforceable in International Courts of Law.  As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. For example, human rights treaties, for example, are generally interpreted to exclude the possibility of withdrawal, because of the importance and permanence of the obligations.  Other treaties are silent on the issue, and so if a state attempts withdrawal through its own unilateral denunciation of the treaty, a determination must be made regarding whether permitting withdrawal is contrary to the original intent of the parties or to the nature of the treaty.

 So, let’s make this discussion practical.  First, the Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton, is not just negotiating the Arms Trading Treaty which was the subject of my original letter to you, she is currently negotiating five UN treaties:  Rights of the Child Treaty, Arms Trading Treaty, Law of the Sea Treaty, International Criminal Court, and Code of Conduct in Outer Space.  So, let’s assume we become a signatory to The Rights of the Child Treaty.  When Prime Minister Cameron of Great Britain, a signatory to that treaty, cut welfare benefits as part of his austerity program, he was sued by the Child’s High Commissioner in Britain under the Treaty of the Child. In effect, he had to defend his action, which was permitted by his constitution, against the provisions of this Treaty. Translation: if the United States were under this treaty and we decided to cut entitlements to balance our budget, would we be sued?

So the question is this.  If you, like I, believe in United States national sovereignty, God-given rights, and individual self-determination, as expressed in the Constitution of the United States, why would one wish to place our Country into any Contract – much less five of them – with others who do not hold our values, only to have to defend those values when they are questioned, through International Court of Law whose judgment is binding upon us?

The answer is pretty straightforward: Ms. Clinton, like the President, stands in opposition to our Constitution and the limitations it places upon government in order to protect individual rights.  Instead of following the Constitution and amending it, this Administration sees a path forward to “transform it” by subjugating our courts of law to an international body.

 Bottom line:  one or more of these treaties may be brought before the Senate in the lame duck session of Congress and passed like health care and other measures, on Christmas eve.  Hopefully, you will consider your Constitutional oath before you cast that vote.

Sincerely,

 //Kristin L. Allen//

---------------  ORIGINAL LETTER ------------------------

Dear Mr. Allen,

 

Thank you for contacting me to share your views regarding a potential United Nations (U.N.) arms trade treaty, which is currently being negotiated at the U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty in New York City.

The U.N. regularly drafts and proposes treaties on a variety of issues that the United States has the ability to consider as a member of the organization. The dialogue surrounding whether to establish an arms trade treaty is ongoing. Any U.N. treaty must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate to be applicable to the United States. However, U.N. treaties do not trump the United States Constitution.

Regarding Second Amendment rights generally, I realize that there are very strong opinions on both sides of the debate. I support public policies that ensure the responsible and appropriate use of guns, as well as efforts to reduce gun-related crimes through increased enforcement and background checks. I do not, however, support laws or regulations that infringe on the Second Amendment Constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

Please be assured that I value the thoughts that you have shared with me on this important issue. I will keep your views in mind should any legislation on this matter come before the full Senate in the future.

Again, thank you for contacting me. For further information or to sign up for my newsletter please visit my website at http://warner.senate.gov. 

 
Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator