PDA

View Full Version : Kerry to sign UN arms treaty...



Arbo
09-25-2013, 09:29 AM
There has been talk about this 'treaty' before, and how it may be used to take away more 2nd amendment rights.

It appears Kerry is going to sign it, without approval from the Senate.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/24/kerry-to-sign-un-arms-treaty-despite-senators-opposition/



Which of course means it is non-binding. But we sort of have a tread of bypassing the system in DC, don't we?


So of course a letter was sent to Obama letting him know he better not act as if the Senate had approved it.


http://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/ranking/release/corker-warns-obama-administration-against-any-action-to-implement-un-arms-trade-treaty-without-senate-advice-and-consent

If he were to try to implement it, you'd finally be talking about clear violations of his office, and most likely a clear path to impeachment.

fj1200
09-25-2013, 09:35 AM
There has been talk about this 'treaty' before, and how it may be used to take away more 2nd amendment rights.

It appears Kerry is going to sign it, without approval from the Senate.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/24/kerry-to-sign-un-arms-treaty-despite-senators-opposition/



Which of course means it is non-binding. But we sort of have a tread of bypassing the system in DC, don't we?


So of course a letter was sent to Obama letting him know he better not act as if the Senate had approved it.


http://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/ranking/release/corker-warns-obama-administration-against-any-action-to-implement-un-arms-trade-treaty-without-senate-advice-and-consent

If he were to try to implement it, you'd finally be talking about clear violations of his office, and most likely a clear path to impeachment.

I think the first bold is SOP. Someone signs a treaty and then sends it to the Senate. The second bold is a bit premature, nothing is being bypassed as of yet.

Little-Acorn
09-25-2013, 11:37 AM
There has been talk about this 'treaty' before, and how it may be used to take away more 2nd amendment rights.

It appears Kerry is going to sign it, without approval from the Senate.
So what?

He can sign anything he wants. It still isn't valid unless the Senate ratifies it.

Kathianne
09-25-2013, 01:33 PM
I think the first bold is SOP. Someone signs a treaty and then sends it to the Senate. The second bold is a bit premature, nothing is being bypassed as of yet.

I don't think so, remember Versailles?

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art2.asp#2sec2


Section 2 - President to be Commander-in-Chief. He may require opinions of cabinet officers, etc., may pardon. Treaty-making power. Nomination of certain officers. When President may fill vacancies. 1. The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
2. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

3. The President shall have the power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions, which shall expire at the end of their next session.

fj1200
09-25-2013, 01:43 PM
:confused: I'm sure we have a few signed, non-ratified treaties floating around which are not the law of the land.

aboutime
09-25-2013, 03:46 PM
According to the U.S. Constitution - treaties:

The Senate's Role in Treaties
The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2 (http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a2_sec2)). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 75 (http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_75.html), “the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.” The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a treaty with a two-thirds vote means that successful treaties must gain support that overcomes partisan division. The two-thirds requirement adds to the burdens of the Senate leadership, and may also encourage opponents of a treaty to engage in a variety of dilatory tactics in hopes of obtaining sufficient votes to ensure its defeat.
The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s).
Most treaties submitted to the Senate have received its advice and consent to ratification. During its first 200 years, the Senate approved more than 1,500 treaties and rejected only 21. A number of these, including the Treaty of Versailles, were rejected twice. Most often, the Senate has simply not voted on treaties that its leadership deemed not to have sufficient support within the Senate for approval, and in general these treaties have eventually been withdrawn. At least 85 treaties were eventually withdrawn because the Senate never took final action on them. Treaties may also remain in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for extended periods, since treaties are not required to be resubmitted at the beginning of each new Congress. There have been instances in which treaties have lain dormant within the committee for years, even decades, without action being taken.

Kathianne
09-25-2013, 04:41 PM
According to the U.S. Constitution - treaties:

The Senate's Role in Treaties
The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2 (http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a2_sec2)). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 75 (http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_75.html), “the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.” The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a treaty with a two-thirds vote means that successful treaties must gain support that overcomes partisan division. The two-thirds requirement adds to the burdens of the Senate leadership, and may also encourage opponents of a treaty to engage in a variety of dilatory tactics in hopes of obtaining sufficient votes to ensure its defeat.
The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s).
Most treaties submitted to the Senate have received its advice and consent to ratification. During its first 200 years, the Senate approved more than 1,500 treaties and rejected only 21. A number of these, including the Treaty of Versailles, were rejected twice. Most often, the Senate has simply not voted on treaties that its leadership deemed not to have sufficient support within the Senate for approval, and in general these treaties have eventually been withdrawn. At least 85 treaties were eventually withdrawn because the Senate never took final action on them. Treaties may also remain in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for extended periods, since treaties are not required to be resubmitted at the beginning of each new Congress. There have been instances in which treaties have lain dormant within the committee for years, even decades, without action being taken.

In this particular case, since the Constitution directly addresses the issue, the 'papers' have little to add to the argument. Noe if you are addressing some point to 'get into the head of one of them,' carry on. Just not clear in this post.

aboutime
09-25-2013, 04:54 PM
In this particular case, since the Constitution directly addresses the issue, the 'papers' have little to add to the argument. Noe if you are addressing some point to 'get into the head of one of them,' carry on. Just not clear in this post.


Kathianne. My interpretation is. Kerry IS NOT authorized to sign such a treaty. I may be wrong on this but I learned long ago...only the President can be the signer of all treaties...per the Senate's submission, and approval.

logroller
09-25-2013, 05:20 PM
What is it to 'make treaties'? Isnt it the sum of the process= presidential ratification and congressional consent?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-25-2013, 06:57 PM
http://www.law.asu.edu/library/RossBlakleyLawLibrary/ResearchNow/ResearchGuides/TreatiesandInternationalAgreements.aspx The United States often enters into agreements with other countries. Two types of agreements are treaties and executive agreements. The United States Constitution art. 2, § 2 dictates that treaties are international agreements that have received the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate and have been ratified by the President. There are two types of treaties. Bilateral treaties are agreements made by two countries. Multilateral treaties are agreements made by three or more countries. As chief executive of the United States, the President has the authority to create international agreements with other nations without Senate approval. These international agreements are called executive agreements.

Treaty-Making Process

Treaties are initiated at the executive level of government usually by the President or the Secretary of State. A representative for the United States is sent to negotiate the terms of the treaty with the representatives of other countries. When the parties agree on the terms, the representative submits the terms to the Secretary of State for approval. If the terms are accepted by the Secretary of State, then the representative will sign the treaty. The Secretary of State submits the treaty to the President for transmittal to the Senate.

Once the President receives the treaty, it is submitted to the Senate for approval. In the Senate, it is referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for consideration. The committee considers the terms of the treaty and, upon approval, submits the treaty to the entire Senate for consideration. The Senate must approve the treaty with a 2/3 majority vote. The President ratifies the treaty and proclaims its entry into force.

Executive-Agreement Process

Executive Agreements follow much of the same process as treaties. They are initiated at the Executive level of government and are negotiated by a representative. When the parties agree on the terms, the Secretary of State authorizes the negotiator to sign the agreement and the agreement will enter into force. Executive agreements do not go to the Senate for consideration and approval. However, the Senate does need to be notified by the Executive Branch within 60 days of signing the agreement [Case-Zablocki Act (1 U.S.C. § 112b)]. Very likely that whatever Kerry signs for Obama is against the best interests of this nation. --Tyr

Arbo
09-25-2013, 07:00 PM
Well, he signed it.

I was pretty sure the process was it goes to the Senate FIRST, then if they approve it goes to the PRESIDENT. That nobody else has any business 'signing' anything. But once the Senate shoots this one down, Kerry will now look like an even bigger fool (if that's possible).

fj1200
09-25-2013, 08:06 PM
Well, he signed it.

I was pretty sure the process was it goes to the Senate FIRST, then if they approve it goes to the PRESIDENT. That nobody else has any business 'signing' anything. But once the Senate shoots this one down, Kerry will now look like an even bigger fool (if that's possible).

It's DOA. The only ones who will here about it are the righty blogs.

logroller
09-25-2013, 08:20 PM
Well, he signed it.

I was pretty sure the process was it goes to the Senate FIRST, then if they approve it goes to the PRESIDENT. That nobody else has any business 'signing' anything. But once the Senate shoots this one down, Kerry will now look like an even bigger fool (if that's possible).
I believe it has something to do with the multilateral process: that the treaty is signed but not yet ratified. Ratification is the process by which it actually enters into force, and even then only after the treaty's prescribed number of ratifications take place. But it doesn't effect those who haven't ratified it. Regardless, Kerry can't ratify it, only Obama can and only with consent of the senate. So this whole Kerry signed it thing is benign.


From Wikipedia :

Ratification is a principal's approval of an act of its agent where the agent lacked authority to legally bind the principal. The term applies to private contract law, international treaties, and constitutionals in federations such as the United States and Canada.

Larrymc
09-25-2013, 08:44 PM
There has been talk about this 'treaty' before, and how it may be used to take away more 2nd amendment rights.

It appears Kerry is going to sign it, without approval from the Senate.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/24/kerry-to-sign-un-arms-treaty-despite-senators-opposition/



Which of course means it is non-binding. But we sort of have a tread of bypassing the system in DC, don't we?


So of course a letter was sent to Obama letting him know he better not act as if the Senate had approved it.


http://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/ranking/release/corker-warns-obama-administration-against-any-action-to-implement-un-arms-trade-treaty-without-senate-advice-and-consent

If he were to try to implement it, you'd finally be talking about clear violations of his office, and most likely a clear path to impeachment. The arrogance of this Administration is never ending.

SassyLady
09-26-2013, 02:06 AM
:confused: I'm sure we have a few signed, non-ratified treaties floating around which are not the law of the land.

Is it possible, then, to have one, signed, non-ratified treaty that might become the law of the land. A person standing in the middle of the road might be missed by a "few" cars, but eventually one of them will probably splatter them all over the road. I'm not willing to bet on the "few" that don't hit.

fj1200
09-26-2013, 06:21 AM
Is it possible, then, to have one, signed, non-ratified treaty that might become the law of the land. A person standing in the middle of the road might be missed by a "few" cars, but eventually one of them will probably splatter them all over the road. I'm not willing to bet on the "few" that don't hit.

No.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-26-2013, 10:02 AM
No. ok, if you say so fj. Somehow I do not believe that Obama pays any attention to what you say. Especially since he already ignores the SCOTUS AND CONGRESS WHENEVER IT SUITS HIM. :laugh:--Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-26-2013, 10:04 AM
Is it possible, then, to have one, signed, non-ratified treaty that might become the law of the land. A person standing in the middle of the road might be missed by a "few" cars, but eventually one of them will probably splatter them all over the road. I'm not willing to bet on the "few" that don't hit. That is the right attitude where Obama admin is concerned. They are writing new laws as they go. Somehow he thinks THAT he and HE ALONE--IS Congress!! --Tyr

fj1200
09-26-2013, 10:07 AM
ok, if you say so fj.

If you can find an example of a signed, non-ratified treaty that is the law of the land then I will gladly concede the point. :poke:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-26-2013, 10:17 AM
If you can find an example of a signed, non-ratified treaty that is the law of the land then I will gladly concede the point. :poke: If you can give me an example of how the "first time" never comes I will concede your point. :poke: Ever hear the old saying that, "there is a first time for everything"? Have you noticed Obama being and doing exactly that? First black prez, first black prez to receive a Nobel Peace price(for doing nothing), first man to publicly acknowledge we have at least 57 states, etc.. I could name some more but you get the drift, dontcha? See a pattern of firsts do ya? --Tyr

fj1200
09-26-2013, 10:18 AM
:facepalm99:

Larrymc
09-26-2013, 10:55 AM
If you can give me an example of how the "first time" never comes I will concede your point. :poke: Ever hear the old saying that, "there is a first time for everything"? Have you noticed Obama being and doing exactly that? First black prez, first black prez to receive a Nobel Peace price(for doing nothing), first man to publicly acknowledge we have at least 57 states, etc.. I could name some more but you get the drift, dontcha? See a pattern of firsts do ya? --TyrWith the Dems afraid to oppose anything Obama brings, it is worrisome that Kerry signed it, in the current political climate just the fact that such could come to a Vote is worrisome.

SassyLady
09-27-2013, 05:30 AM
If you can find an example of a signed, non-ratified treaty that is the law of the land then I will gladly concede the point. :poke:

This is why I'm worried.


Signature: If the President decides that a treaty is in the nation's best interests (and does not violate the US Constitution!), the President (or designated representative) will sign the treaty. Signing a treaty does not make it become law! It means that the US Government believes the treaty is a good idea, and commits the President to seeking ratification. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright signed the CRC on behalf of the US in 1995. -

See more at: http://childrightscampaign.org/why-ratify/how-does-the-united-states-ratify-treaties#sthash.oOYuIQPU.dpuf

Note the words "If the President decides that a treaty is in the nation's best interests (and does not violate the US Constitution)". It means the "Government" believes it is a good idea.

Apparently the President feels the arms treaty is in the best interests of America and that it does not violate the Constitution. Do you feel the same way?



However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President. - See more at: http://childrightscampaign.org/why-ratify/how-does-the-united-states-ratify-treaties#sthash.oOYuIQPU.dpuf

Apparently it sits there from, being available for Congress to ratify at any time. All it takes if 67 votes. Do you really think there will never be a Congress that bows to the UN?

I do not trust Congress to protect our Constitution any more.

fj1200
09-27-2013, 06:03 AM
This is why I'm worried.


Note the words "If the President decides that a treaty is in the nation's best interests (and does not violate the US Constitution)". It means the "Government" believes it is a good idea.

Apparently the President feels the arms treaty is in the best interests of America and that it does not violate the Constitution. Do you feel the same way?



Apparently it sits there from, being available for Congress to ratify at any time. All it takes if 67 votes. Do you really think there will never be a Congress that bows to the UN?

I do not trust Congress to protect our Constitution any more.

The process by which treaties are ratified worries you? It doesn't worry me. Your pull quote was dumbed down enough so that the knuckleheads who think the CRC was a good idea would know what the process is, and even then it seems to be accurate. I'd be more concerned about typical legislation that only requires 50 votes, plus the Veep, or 60 votes for cloture than I am in 67 votes to ratify a treaty. It's much ado about nothing more than a liberal administration that likes liberal things. Besides, if they can get 67 votes for junk like that we have a whole host of other problems to worry about.

And no, I don't like the treaty.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-27-2013, 08:59 AM
With the Dems afraid to oppose anything Obama brings, it is worrisome that Kerry signed it, in the current political climate just the fact that such could come to a Vote is worrisome.

Yes, signed by Hanoi Jane's big buddy Kerry the ever loving freaking traitor. We should be far more worried abut the types Obama has been putting into powerful positions in his admin but the media ignores that unless they are praising it. Remember Hillary was given the same gig to prep her to run for the Presidency, do you think Kerry is being prepped to run again in the future? Nothing the damn dem party does shocks me because vermin that low have no scruples and no honor.-Tyr

logroller
09-27-2013, 11:25 AM
If you can give me an example of how the "first time" never comes I will concede your point. :poke: Ever hear the old saying that, "there is a first time for everything"? Have you noticed Obama being and doing exactly that? First black prez, first black prez to receive a Nobel Peace price(for doing nothing), first man to publicly acknowledge we have at least 57 states, etc.. I could name some more but you get the drift, dontcha? See a pattern of firsts do ya? --Tyr
None of those are laws though. Or treaties. nice dodge. :poke:
Check out Woodrow Wilson though. I think he did. Regardless I can list ten treaties that were signed, not ratified and not enforced for every example you could possibly name. Hell we didn't even ratify the League of Nations, crafted our own treaty and then claimed all the rights and privileges of the unratified treaty. That's an interesting one actually because the issue was that we would be required to go to war if another member was attacked....which they were and we stuck to our policy of isolationism.

Some aspects of treaties can be enforced without congressional approval. It's just those parts that require legislation, ie changes to existing laws governing domestic matters that require congressional consent. Most don't. There is a part of the ATT that does. But its my understanding that the president can enforce the foreign components without, per the constitution.
And even if the domestic portion doesn't adversely affect the us in don't think there's be an issue.
If there was a Tuesday's are green shirt day treaty, kerry signs it and the president declared by fiat that green shirts be worn on Tuesdays. As it lacks the force of law (which congress alone can pass) it wouldn't violate the constitution. It'd just be a proclamation, which happens all the time. Even congress makes such statements, they're called resolutions. They don't carry the force of law either and congress does have the power to make it so should they choose.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-27-2013, 04:11 PM
None of those are laws though. Or treaties. nice dodge. :poke:
Check out Woodrow Wilson though. I think he did. Regardless I can list ten treaties that were signed, not ratified and not enforced for every example you could possibly name. Hell we didn't even ratify the League of Nations, crafted our own treaty and then claimed all the rights and privileges of the unratified treaty. That's an interesting one actually because the issue was that we would be required to go to war if another member was attacked....which they were and we stuck to our policy of isolationism.

Some aspects of treaties can be enforced without congressional approval. It's just those parts that require legislation, ie changes to existing laws governing domestic matters that require congressional consent. Most don't. There is a part of the ATT that does. But its my understanding that the president can enforce the foreign components without, per the constitution.
And even if the domestic portion doesn't adversely affect the us in don't think there's be an issue.
If there was a Tuesday's are green shirt day treaty, kerry signs it and the president declared by fiat that green shirts be worn on Tuesdays. As it lacks the force of law (which congress alone can pass) it wouldn't violate the constitution. It'd just be a proclamation, which happens all the time. Even congress makes such statements, they're called resolutions. They don't carry the force of law either and congress does have the power to make it so should they choose. Methinks you greatly underestimate Obama's true agenda and pattern of just doing as he pleases. Both factors of concern when /if any type of treaty comes by way of his State Department IMHO.-Tyr

Arbo
09-27-2013, 04:42 PM
Methinks you greatly underestimate Obama's true agenda

What is his true agenda? Is there a link to documents that show what it is?

logroller
09-27-2013, 05:14 PM
Methinks you greatly underestimate Obama's true agenda and pattern of just doing as he pleases. Both factors of concern when /if any type of treaty comes by way of his State Department IMHO.-Tyr
I think you greatly overestimate the effect he could have. For example, what does the state dept have to do with domestic law enforcement and how closely tied is international arms trading to domestic arms?

just out of curiosity, what percentage of the international small arms trade do you believe the US represents?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-27-2013, 06:28 PM
I think you greatly overestimate the effect he could have. For example, what does the state dept have to do with domestic law enforcement and how closely tied is international arms trading to domestic arms?

just out of curiosity, what percentage of the international small arms trade do you believe the US represents? No sir, will not take that bait. Its about more than small arms trading Hoss. Read this for starters.


In his own analysis of the treaty, Michael Hammer, an attorney with Gun Owners of America, said the pact sets up the legal framework for the federal government to not only build a national gun registry, but to also regulate gun ownership. http://www.humanevents.com/2013/09/25/kerry-signs-un-arms-trade-treaty-despite-objections/ This is not the damn white dove its being made out to be!! -Tyr

fj1200
09-27-2013, 07:46 PM
No sir, will not take that bait. Its about more than small arms trading Hoss. Read this for starters.
This is not the damn white dove its being made out to be!! -Tyr

Well thank goodness it's going nowhere. :rolleyes:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-27-2013, 10:02 PM
Well thank goodness it's going nowhere. :rolleyes: Your neighbor buys a cannon , puts it in his back yard pointed directly at your house. Are you going to rest easy hoping its never loaded or he is never loaded playing around with it? What if that neighbor has proven to be shady and very untrustworthy, going to rest even easier ?

SassyLady
09-27-2013, 10:47 PM
fj and logroller .... if this treaty is nothing to be concerned about, why did Kerry sign it? I may be wrong, but I think one of you or both of you assured me a few months ago that this treaty would never be signed, and now it is.

Kathianne
09-27-2013, 11:59 PM
None of those are laws though. Or treaties. nice dodge. :poke:
Check out Woodrow Wilson though. I think he did. Regardless I can list ten treaties that were signed, not ratified and not enforced for every example you could possibly name. Hell we didn't even ratify the League of Nations, crafted our own treaty and then claimed all the rights and privileges of the unratified treaty. That's an interesting one actually because the issue was that we would be required to go to war if another member was attacked....which they were and we stuck to our policy of isolationism.

Some aspects of treaties can be enforced without congressional approval. It's just those parts that require legislation, ie changes to existing laws governing domestic matters that require congressional consent. Most don't. There is a part of the ATT that does. But its my understanding that the president can enforce the foreign components without, per the constitution.
And even if the domestic portion doesn't adversely affect the us in don't think there's be an issue.
If there was a Tuesday's are green shirt day treaty, kerry signs it and the president declared by fiat that green shirts be worn on Tuesdays. As it lacks the force of law (which congress alone can pass) it wouldn't violate the constitution. It'd just be a proclamation, which happens all the time. Even congress makes such statements, they're called resolutions. They don't carry the force of law either and congress does have the power to make it so should they choose.

Wilson signed the ceremonial copy, not the actual treaty. Without ratification of 2/3 Senate, US is not bound:

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/world-war-i/resources/treaty-versailles-and-president-wilson-1919-and-1921

fj1200
09-28-2013, 06:58 AM
Your neighbor buys a cannon , puts it in his back yard pointed directly at your house. Are you going to rest easy hoping its never loaded or he is never loaded playing around with it? What if that neighbor has proven to be shady and very untrustworthy, going to rest even easier ?

A treaty that has no chance of ratification is not a gun, it's not even your neighbor making a gun gesture with his hands. :poke:


fj and logroller .... if this treaty is nothing to be concerned about, why did Kerry sign it? I may be wrong, but I think one of you or both of you assured me a few months ago that this treaty would never be signed, and now it is.

Because liberal. It's nothing to be concerned about because it's not going anywhere. BO can't even get his majority now let alone 67 votes to ratify a treaty.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-28-2013, 08:19 AM
A treaty that has no chance of ratification is not a gun, it's not even your neighbor making a gun gesture with his hands. :poke:. Why sign it then? Get our point, the government signing something that has zero chance to be ratified is the damn problem! Simply because it points to an out of touch and ffed up government under Obama's control. -Tyr

Arbo
09-28-2013, 09:13 AM
Why sign it then?

To give idiots and morons something to focus on instead of stuff that matters. Worked well it seems.

fj1200
09-28-2013, 01:33 PM
Why sign it then? Get our point, the government signing something that has zero chance to be ratified is the damn problem! Simply because it points to an out of touch and ffed up government under Obama's control. -Tyr


Because liberal.

10 treaties the U.S. hasn't ratified (http://www.politico.com/gallery/2012/07/10-treaties-the-u-s-hasnt-ratified/000303-003922.html)
Just as every other unsigned treaty "points to an out of touch and ffed up government under 'insert POTUS name' control." :rolleyes:

Kathianne
09-29-2013, 02:51 AM
10 treaties the U.S. hasn't ratified (http://www.politico.com/gallery/2012/07/10-treaties-the-u-s-hasnt-ratified/000303-003922.html)


Just as every other unsigned treaty "points to an out of touch and ffed up government under 'insert POTUS name' control." :rolleyes:

Are you saying that these 10 treaties were signed by a president or his representative?

fj1200
09-29-2013, 02:00 PM
Are you saying that these 10 treaties were signed by a president or his representative?

Well I didn't check them all but that's certainly the premise, are you saying that they were not? And I'm just trying to quantify all the other times where we've had signed, but not ratified, treaties pointing to an "out of touch" government.

I think my stated premise when I take my seat in the Senate will be to vote against any treaty that could be interpreted to mandate behavior on citizens within our borders.

logroller
09-30-2013, 08:37 AM
Wilson signed the ceremonial copy, not the actual treaty. Without ratification of 2/3 Senate, US is not bound:

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/world-war-i/resources/treaty-versailles-and-president-wilson-1919-and-1921

Not bound indeed. My point is that, in failing to ratify the treaty, the act of signing became ceremonial; conversely had it been ratified, the treaty would be binding and not be merely ceremonial.
From the August 24, 1921 'actual' treaty provided by consent of congress and approved by the president

article I
Austria undertakes to accord to the United States and the United States shall have and enjoy all the rights, privileges, indemnities, reparations or advantages specified in the aforesaid Joint Resolution of the Congress of the United States of July 2, 1921, including all the rights and advantages stipulated for the benefit of the United States in the Treaty of St. Germain-en-Laye which the United States shall fully enjoy notwithstanding the fact that such Treaty has not been ratified by the United States. The United States in availing itself of the rights and advantages stipulated in the provisions of that Treaty, will do so in a manner consistent with the rights accorded to Austria under such provisions. http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/uspeacetreaty_austria.htm


i see no mention of the aforementioned treaty of st germain-en-laye's 'ceremonial' nature. It pretty much says we signed it but its not been ratified, but we liked these parts, we'll keep those, these other parts (see article II), no.

So, given the absence of congressional resolution and presidential approval to make such a treaty binding, Kerry signing the ATT is no less ceremonial in effect.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-30-2013, 09:45 AM
Not bound indeed. My point is that, in failing to ratify the treaty, the act of signing became ceremonial; conversely had it been ratified, the treaty would be binding and not be merely ceremonial.
From the August 24, 1921 'actual' treaty provided by consent of congress and approved by the president
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/uspeacetreaty_austria.htm


i see no mention of the aforementioned treaty of st germain-en-laye's 'ceremonial' nature. It pretty much says we signed it but its not been ratified, but we liked these parts, we'll keep those, these other parts (see article II), no.

So, given the absence of congressional resolution and presidential approval to make such a treaty binding, Kerry signing the ATT is no less ceremonial in effect. Yea, its not Obama would act upon it as if it were signed and ratified , right? :rolleyes: I mean look at how well he abides by the U.S. Constitution for that. :rolleyes: He just chooses which laws he likes and has those enforced, the others ffkk Congress and the American citizens. Still amazes me how many supposedly smart people completely ignore his actions so far in doing as he pleases. I guess star struck went to a whole new level when that bastard showed up. Which is sickening to any that have integrity and honor in this nation. Those that don't matter to me like an ant I may step on while on a sidewalk stroll. --Tyr

Jeff
09-30-2013, 10:29 AM
fj and logroller .... if this treaty is nothing to be concerned about, why did Kerry sign it? I may be wrong, but I think one of you or both of you assured me a few months ago that this treaty would never be signed, and now it is.

If this treaty is nothing to be concerned of why did Obama just hours ( when he should of been partying ) of winning the election get in touch with those to get the ball rolling ?




Reuters reports (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107?irpc=932) that within hours of his securing his reelection, President Obama ordered the U.S. United Nations delegation to vote in favor of a UN proposal to fast track an international gun control treaty.
Immediately the word went out that the United States was going to play ball (after having scuttled the last round of talks on the Arms Trade Treaty in July), and a new round of negotiations on the treaty was scheduled for March 18-28 at the UN headquarters in New York City.
A press release was sent out (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2012/gadis3471.doc.htm) early Wednesday morning from the United Nations General Assembly’s First Committee proclaiming the good news of President Obama’s go-ahead for the gun grab and setting the agenda for the next gun control conference:



http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/13586-hours-after-re-election-obama-green-lights-un-gun-grab

logroller
09-30-2013, 02:40 PM
If this treaty is nothing to be concerned of why did Obama just hours ( when he should of been partying ) of winning the election get in touch with those to get the ball rolling ?


http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/13586-hours-after-re-election-obama-green-lights-un-gun-grab
Too late to set up a tee time perhaps. Then again, maybe its all part of the geopolitical nature of the executive to negotiate with foreign nations on such matters. Either way, administrative powers of the executive branch are nonetheless subject to constitutional scrutiny. So what if foreign nations jump about shouting hurray for green-shirt day, until someone gets penalized for wearing a blue shirt its just political bloviating.
I don't seek to minimize the threat such treaties pose to our freedoms but, if one was to prioritize such threats, I'd say there's actual legislation on the books in full force, like the patriot act, state gun control laws, etc that demand more attention. Losing sight of this is easy to do amidst the smoke and mirrors of politics. I'm not so easily disillusioned.

fj1200
09-30-2013, 03:01 PM
If this treaty is nothing to be concerned of why did Obama just hours ( when he should of been partying ) of winning the election get in touch with those to get the ball rolling ?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/13586-hours-after-re-election-obama-green-lights-un-gun-grab

Because politics?


U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney (http://www.reuters.com/people/mitt-romney?lc=int_mb_1001) if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107?irpc=932

Jeff
09-30-2013, 03:09 PM
Because politics?


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107?irpc=932

Well I can honestly say in my 51 years on this earth this is the first president I knew that took time from all the parties going on on election night to get something going that he put on hold back in July , yup I could be wrong unlike all you geniuses on this board ( well the good ones anyway, you know the 4 or 5 that will actually be here participating within a couple weeks ) have made it quite clear I have no idea what I am talking about so I guess all presidents do that the night they are elected

logroller
09-30-2013, 05:08 PM
Well I can honestly say in my 51 years on this earth this is the first president I knew that took time from all the parties going on on election night to get something going that he put on hold back in July , yup I could be wrong unlike all you geniuses on this board ( well the good ones anyway, you know the 4 or 5 that will actually be here participating within a couple weeks ) have made it quite clear I have no idea what I am talking about so I guess all presidents do that the night they are elected
Its funny to me because it seems like you're concerned he wasn't partying it up. Which is ironic considering the recurring issue of Obama's leisure time (I'm sure you've received emails/FB posts on this)-- to which I say the president doesn't get time off, not really ever-- its a 24/7 job.

It's not that you're wrong, its that you're now aware. The frenzy of media glams onto all kinds of drudgery and its difficult to sort through it all. I mean what was bush doing after he was reelected? Clinton? Reagan? Was it all fine cigars and cognac? I honestly don't know but I can venture to guess that, after months of campaigning its back to work on the agenda. What constitutes Obama's agenda on gun control is hardly a secret, so all I can say is the administration's pursuit of such is no less surprising. But that doesn make it law and congress was forthwith in proscribing any attempt to enforce it. That, to me, is the end of it-- back to the other things which require attention. I'm not saying its not worth keeping an eye out, never enough watchdogs IMO, but pick your battles-- you can't win em all and dividing your efforts is a sure-fire losing strategy.

Jeff
09-30-2013, 05:17 PM
Its funny to me because it seems like you're concerned he wasn't partying it up. Which is ironic considering the recurring issue of Obama's leisure time (I'm sure you've received emails/FB posts on this)-- to which I say the president doesn't get time off, not really ever-- its a 24/7 job.

It's not that you're wrong, its that you're now aware. The frenzy of media glams onto all kinds of drudgery and its difficult to sort through it all. I mean what was bush doing after he was reelected? Clinton? Reagan? Was it all fine cigars and cognac? I honestly don't know but I can venture to guess that, after months of campaigning its back to work on the agenda. What constitutes Obama's agenda on gun control is hardly a secret, so all I can say is the administration's pursuit of such is no less surprising. But that doesn make it law and congress was forthwith in proscribing any attempt to enforce it. That, to me, is the end of it-- back to the other things which require attention. I'm not saying its not worth keeping an eye out, never enough watchdogs IMO, but pick your battles-- you can't win em all and dividing your efforts is a sure-fire losing strategy.

Well of course he was partying but to take even a second from the party he deserved to get this going shows how bad he wanted it, but all is good Y'all got it going on

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-30-2013, 07:30 PM
Its funny to me because it seems like you're concerned he wasn't partying it up. Which is ironic considering the recurring issue of Obama's leisure time (I'm sure you've received emails/FB posts on this)-- to which I say the president doesn't get time off, not really ever-- its a 24/7 job.

It's not that you're wrong, its that you're now aware. The frenzy of media glams onto all kinds of drudgery and its difficult to sort through it all. I mean what was bush doing after he was reelected? Clinton? Reagan? Was it all fine cigars and cognac? I honestly don't know but I can venture to guess that, after months of campaigning its back to work on the agenda. What constitutes Obama's agenda on gun control is hardly a secret, so all I can say is the administration's pursuit of such is no less surprising. But that doesn make it law and congress was forthwith in proscribing any attempt to enforce it. That, to me, is the end of it-- back to the other things which require attention. I'm not saying its not worth keeping an eye out, never enough watchdogs IMO, but pick your battles-- you can't win em all and dividing your efforts is a sure-fire losing strategy. HELL, OBAMA JUMPED ON THE GUN CONTROL CRUSADES BOTH HANDS AND FEET AS SOON AS HE KNEW HE HAD WON HIS SECOND TERM. JUST LIKE I SAID HE WOULD. AMAZING HOW RIGHT I WAS YET WAS TOLD BY MANY HE IS NOT FOR GUN CONTROL BECAUSE HE IGNORED IT IN HIS FIRST TERM. Which I correctly pointed out he did to win his second term. -Tyr

logroller
10-01-2013, 01:41 AM
HELL, OBAMA JUMPED ON THE GUN CONTROL CRUSADES BOTH HANDS AND FEET AS SOON AS HE KNEW HE HAD WON HIS SECOND TERM. JUST LIKE I SAID HE WOULD. AMAZING HOW RIGHT I WAS YET WAS TOLD BY MANY HE IS NOT FOR GUN CONTROL BECAUSE HE IGNORED IT IN HIS FIRST TERM. Which I correctly pointed out he did to win his second term. -Tyr
You pointed out that he ignored gun control? Hardly. He may of pressed pause for the election, but he certainly didn't ignore it. I've admitted that he's a snake in the grass on gun control, fast and furious is irrefutable proof of that, but for you to take credit for some predilection of obama's agenda on gun control is laughable. You even quoted evidence of his admin's position on this very treaty months before the election; the articles clearly expose whatever prognostication you now claim was yours.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/5/the-un-is-coming-for-your-guns/

-The Washington Times
Thursday, July 5, 2012


Illustration: U.N. gun grabbing by Alexander Hunter for The Washington Times more >Story TopicsPolitics
United Nations
U.N. General Assembly


The United Nations is deliberating over a treaty that will place comprehensive limits on the international weapons trade. The language of the draft agreement is so expansive it wouldn’t take an Obama-appointed judge very long to extend the treaty to cover the domestic firearms market as well. If American jurists continue to be enamored by the popular trend to consider international precedence when making U.S. rulings, you can kiss the Second Amendment goodbye.


This week, the U.N. General Assembly began formal discussion of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which seeks to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.” The scope of the proposed treaty is vast. It covers tanks, military vehicles, aircraft (including drones), ships, submarines, missiles and ammunition. It seeks to regulate arms import, export, transfer, brokering, manufacture under foreign license and technology transfer. The proposed global regulation instructs countries to “take the necessary legislative and administrative measures, to adapt, as necessary, national laws and regulations to implement the obligations of this treaty.”


The George W. Bush administration opposed the treaty when it was first proposed in 2006. However, the Obama administration is giving it high-level support. This has generated legitimate alarm on Capitol Hill. Last week, more than 125 members of Congress sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton registering strong objections about the treaty language being drafted, which they say is “likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.” In particular, the members are concerned about an international arms treaty that infringes on “the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment, as well as the right of personal self-defense on which the Second Amendment is based.” They conclude that the ATT “should not cover small arms, light weapons or related material such as firearms ammunitions.”


Arms Trade Treaty backers argue that because the treaty will only regulate international trade, it poses no threat to individual gun rights. That propaganda aside, defenders of the Second Amendment are right to be suspicious. The recent Obamacare debate over the Constitution’s Commerce Clause highlighted that goods and services need not actually cross state lines to be considered “interstate.” Successive Supreme Court rulings have extended the term to any commerce that even indirectly affects interstate markets - which in practice means all commerce. A ratified treaty, with constitutional authority, could be interpreted in a way that any weapon made with foreign components - or that might some day be exported, or that affects the overall arms market - could be said to be part of “international” trade.


There are also concerns that the ATT would be so broad, vague and poorly defined that it could be used as a political tool to obstruct otherwise licit U.S. arms sales and transfers to countries like Israel and the Republic of China (Taiwan). Some backers want the treaty to contain language regarding human rights, international humanitarian law and “sustainable development” that could be applied in ways that frustrate U.S. global strategy and oppose U.S. national interests. The final draft won’t be ready for a vote for several weeks, but even if radical changes are made to it, U.N. gun control is a misfire for America.


The Washington Times


Don't think this is harmless to we citizens. Its designed to be broad enough to be used later to take away our gun rights! Remember if obama is for it we should be against it!--Tyr

Obama Seeks US Congressional Ratification of UN Global Gun Control Treaty


http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-seeks ... reaty.html


Susanne Posel
Prisonplanet.com
June 14, 2012


Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State has announced that the Obama administration is working with the United Nations (UN) to approve, through the US Congress, the Small Arms Treaty (SAT).


Clinton affirmed that the US would facilitate talks with the UN in the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, as long as it “operates under the rules of consensus decision-making. Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.”


This global gun control scheme, concocted by the UN, is called the International Arms Control Treaty (IACT). Disguised as a way to combat terrorism, insurgents and international criminals, this document endeavors to secure that the world’s citizens cannot defend themselves.


The IACT will empower the UN to literally force the US government to:




Enact internationally agreed licensing requirements for Americans.
Confiscate and destroy unauthorized firearms of Americans while allowing the US government to keep theirs.
Ban trade, sale and private ownership of semi-automatic guns.
Create and mandate an international registry to organize an encompassing gun confiscation in America.






Yet again an end run around that which he can not get enacted by way of Congress!
Americans had better wake up to exactly what obama is doing. For this cedes not only our gun rights but another chunk of our Sovereignty as well. -Tyr



You did go on to say that this 'end run' would entail executive orders on gun control. So, any such EO on gun control? Show me them and I gladly concede your being correct but, I gotta be honest, it better be more heinous than the end run committed with fast and furious to reduce f&f to his 'ignoring' gun control in his first term.

fj1200
10-01-2013, 02:38 PM
Well I can honestly say in my 51 years on this earth this is the first president I knew that took time from all the parties going on on election night to get something going that he put on hold back in July , yup I could be wrong unlike all you geniuses on this board ( well the good ones anyway, you know the 4 or 5 that will actually be here participating within a couple weeks ) have made it quite clear I have no idea what I am talking about so I guess all presidents do that the night they are elected

I don't know what your typical POTUS does after reelection but the Reuters article didn't actually say BO did anything, just that the US backed a UN committees call.

jimnyc
10-01-2013, 02:50 PM
I'd like to punch that 'ol Lurch lookalike right in his face. I'm not saying I "AM" going to do that, so calm down, NSA!!! There's probably a few million people I would like to punch in the face, just a desire of things that would never happen. But even though just wishful thinking, my top 100 are almost all comprised of politicians.

aboutime
10-01-2013, 02:54 PM
I'd like to punch that 'ol Lurch lookalike right in his face. I'm not saying I "AM" going to do that, so calm down, NSA!!! There's probably a few million people I would like to punch in the face, just a desire of things that would never happen. But even though just wishful thinking, my top 100 are almost all comprised of politicians.


JIM. ENLARGE the photo, then print it on paper, and DO IT!.....http://icansayit.com/images/lurchkerry.jpg