Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 53
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,968
    Thanks (Given)
    37
    Thanks (Received)
    39
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Kerry to sign UN arms treaty...

    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...rs-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/...ce-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.
    Last edited by Arbo; 09-25-2013 at 08:30 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,895
    Thanks (Given)
    4182
    Thanks (Received)
    4529
    Likes (Given)
    1414
    Likes (Received)
    1066
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    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...rs-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/...ce-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.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    7,396
    Thanks (Given)
    11
    Thanks (Received)
    1501
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    47
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2067946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    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.
    "The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,506
    Thanks (Given)
    23722
    Thanks (Received)
    17276
    Likes (Given)
    9555
    Likes (Received)
    6007
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    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.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,895
    Thanks (Given)
    4182
    Thanks (Received)
    4529
    Likes (Given)
    1414
    Likes (Received)
    1066
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173677

    Default

    I'm sure we have a few signed, non-ratified treaties floating around which are not the law of the land.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    23,251
    Thanks (Given)
    7207
    Thanks (Received)
    11746
    Likes (Given)
    1048
    Likes (Received)
    1381
    Piss Off (Given)
    4
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475213

    Default

    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). 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, “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.
    I love to make Liberals Cry, and Whine.
    So, this is for them.
    GOD BLESS AMERICA - IN GOD WE TRUST !

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,506
    Thanks (Given)
    23722
    Thanks (Received)
    17276
    Likes (Given)
    9555
    Likes (Received)
    6007
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aboutime View Post
    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). 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, “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.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    23,251
    Thanks (Given)
    7207
    Thanks (Received)
    11746
    Likes (Given)
    1048
    Likes (Received)
    1381
    Piss Off (Given)
    4
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
    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.
    I love to make Liberals Cry, and Whine.
    So, this is for them.
    GOD BLESS AMERICA - IN GOD WE TRUST !

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395474

    Default

    What is it to 'make treaties'? Isnt it the sum of the process= presidential ratification and congressional consent?
    He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.AeschylusRead more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...zeMUwcpY1Io.99

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475257

    Default

    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
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,968
    Thanks (Given)
    37
    Thanks (Received)
    39
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    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).

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,895
    Thanks (Given)
    4182
    Thanks (Received)
    4529
    Likes (Given)
    1414
    Likes (Received)
    1066
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    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.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    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.
    He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.AeschylusRead more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...zeMUwcpY1Io.99

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    South East Texas
    Posts
    1,383
    Thanks (Given)
    74
    Thanks (Received)
    48
    Likes (Given)
    4
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    913952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    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...rs-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/...ce-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.
    Christian Democrat has become an oxymoron

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    over here
    Posts
    13,356
    Thanks (Given)
    5574
    Thanks (Received)
    6627
    Likes (Given)
    5342
    Likes (Received)
    3966
    Piss Off (Given)
    35
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17558168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    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.
    If the freedom of speech is taken away
    then dumb and silent we may be led,
    like sheep to the slaughter.


    George Washington (1732-1799) First President of the USA.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums