Kerry to sign UN arms treaty...

[fj1200]

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.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well thank goodness it's going nowhere.

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]

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]

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.

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

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history...-1919-and-1921

[fj1200]

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.

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]

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. .

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]

Why sign it then?

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

[fj1200]

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

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

[Kathianne]

10 treaties the U.S. hasn't ratified


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

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

[fj1200]

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]

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

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history...-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/...ty_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]

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/...ty_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? I mean look at how well he abides by the U.S. Constitution for that. 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]

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 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 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...ts-un-gun-grab

[logroller]

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...ts-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]

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...ts-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 if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...21107?irpc=932