Kerry to sign UN arms treaty...

[fj1200]

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]

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. --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

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]

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.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

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.

If you can give me an example of how the "first time" never comes I will concede your point. 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]

[Larrymc]

If you can give me an example of how the "first time" never comes I will concede your point. 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

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.

[SassyLady]

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.

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-r....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-r....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]

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]

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]

If you can give me an example of how the "first time" never comes I will concede your point. 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.
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]

None of those are laws though. Or treaties. nice dodge.
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]

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]

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]

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/2013/09/2...te-objections/

This is not the damn white dove its being made out to be!! -Tyr