U.N. finalizing arms treaty to regulate weapons transfers worldwide

posted at 4:01 pm on July 11, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

As we’ve seen time and again, the United Nations is little more than an ineffective, morally squishy, highly corrupted joke of an international bureaucracy that in the long run has done hardly anything productive in stabilizing global affairs or promoting lasting peace. Honestly, why do we contribute funding (and the lion’s share, at that!) to this globalist boondoggle? So we can be lectured about how our economic prowess is ostensibly creating a climate emergency while China sits smugly on their Human Rights Council? Thanks, but I’ll pass on the proffered guilt trip.

Throughout the month, the United Nations is working on an arms treaty ostensibly aimed at reducing violence that has America’s pro-Second Amendment crowd up in arms. While President Bush was reliably resistant to heeding the U.N. on the idea (bravo!), President Obama reversed U.S. policy on that score in 2009 by bringing the U.S. back to the bargaining table:

International talks in New York are going on throughout July on the final wording of the so-called Arms Trade Treaty, which supporters such as Amnesty International USA say would rein in unregulated weapons that kill an estimated 1,500 people daily around the world. But critics, including the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, warn the treaty would mark a major step toward the eventual erosion of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment gun-ownership rights. …

While the treaty’s details are still under discussion, the document could straitjacket U.S. foreign policy to the point where Washington could be restricted from helping arm friends such as Taiwan and Israel…

LaPierre says the treaty that is likely to emerge will have the effect of squeezing individual gun owners in the United States and elsewhere by imposing on them an onerous collection of regulations. …

“The world’s worst human rights abusers will end up voting for this, while the Obama administration has not drawn a line in the sand like the previous administration did. Instead, it is trying to be a part of this train wreck because they think they can somehow finesse it. But, to me, there is no finessing the individual freedoms of American citizens.”

The United Nations can’t manage to get its act together on cracking down on genocide, terrorism, and human rights abuses, but we’re to trust them to orchestrate regulations that would clash with our own policies? I can’t see that working out well, and I’ll go ahead and make a wild guess that somewhere down the road this would end up benefiting dictatorial regimes while depriving good citizens of the fundamental right to bear arms.

Even if President Obama could get behind the idea, our current Congress won’t — and seeing how the Senate has to ratify treaties, I don’t foresee the U.S. signing on to this. Preach it, Mr. LaPierre:

Oops: In my last paragraph, I originally wrote that “Congress” has to ratify treaties — I’ve clarified it to just the Senate above!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

koolaid????

jimver on July 11, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Fast & Furious was no doubt timed to set the table for this.

Akzed on July 11, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Even if President Obama could get behind the idea, our current Congress won’t — and seeing how Congress has to ratify treaties, I don’t foresee the U.S. signing on to this.

..still in all, with respect to the second amendment, we must remain vigilant to ALL incursions on our rights.

The War Planner on July 11, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Get the US the hell out of the UN.

Then kick their collectivist, globalist, espionage-ridden arses back to the shiiteholes from whence they came.

JohnGalt23 on July 11, 2012 at 4:07 PM

If bho/team thought he had problems before, JUST try to take our guns away and WE WILL NOT BE happy! bho/team can say and try to do things, but congress has to give the final vote on it! If bho even tried an eo on this, I’m not sure he could but who knows with him, this would sink him big time, IMO!

Good gosh I hat! bho and his whole anti-American team, and I MEAN THAT!
L

letget on July 11, 2012 at 4:07 PM

I wonder how many expensive gourmet lunches will sacrifice their lives during the lengthy negotiation process for this treaty.

MessesWithTexas on July 11, 2012 at 4:08 PM

“But, to me, there is no finessing the individual freedoms of American citizens.”

What do you think Obowma and the Liberals have been doing for the past 50 years…?

Seven Percent Solution on July 11, 2012 at 4:08 PM

…which supporters such as Amnesty International USA say would rein in unregulated weapons that kill an estimated 1,500 people daily around the world

If the weapons are unregulated, then how is controlling regulated arms trading going to make a difference in the market for unregulated guns?? Geez, people!! Think these things through!!

It’s like gun control laws in the US. They really only hamper legal gun owners, because people that are using guns for crimes aren’t typically getting them through legal means.

gravityman on July 11, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Who needs a treaty…?
Obamses commands it.
So it shall be written.
So it shall be done.

NeoKong on July 11, 2012 at 4:09 PM

I didn’t forsee the US socializing medicine. I didn’t forsee the Supreme Court deciding the government can impose a tax on anything we choose not to buy if they want us to buy it.

I wouldn’t count on our gun rights being safe just because Congress has to ratify a treaty.

DrAllecon on July 11, 2012 at 4:09 PM

seeing how Congress has to ratify treaties

You meant the Senate, not the Congress.

AZCoyote on July 11, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Even if President Obama could get behind the idea, our current Congress won’t — and seeing how Congress has to ratify treaties, I don’t foresee the U.S. signing on to this. Preach it, Mr. LaPierre:

I don’t trust our Senate. Seems to me that Romney should be jumping on this. Who are these clowns to tell us how to run our country? I’m not a gun owner, but I darned well believe in my right to own one with little regulation from the government.

How is restriction on gun rights working in Chicago these days?

BuckeyeSam on July 11, 2012 at 4:09 PM

From my cold dead hands.

Kataklysmic on July 11, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Obama got back into this because this treaty will be useful cover for him to stop all arms shipments to Israel.

rockmom on July 11, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Guns are illegal in Mexico…

… How’s that working out?

Seven Percent Solution on July 11, 2012 at 4:12 PM

How many cops would be willing to take guns from fellow citizens who were unwilling to give them up?

100 million firearms in private hands is why America will never be conquered by force. Surrendered by doofusses – sure. But conquered – don’t make me laugh ’cause I get out of breath easy.

platypus on July 11, 2012 at 4:12 PM

This deal has to be killed in the Senate! If the American people knew what it was about it would never survive in the Senate. In fact, this could even damage the BHO Campaign as many fence sitters would jump to Romney. Some dems might even change their minds as a result of this treaty being pushed by the Administration

tomshup on July 11, 2012 at 4:13 PM

I never thought I’d see the day an opulent eunuch would have control of the United States of America and its citizens. I don’t trust the Senate not to ratify what is, on it’s face, a treaty in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.

totherightofthem on July 11, 2012 at 4:14 PM

My wish in regards to the UN.

PNG every non-US citizen that works there. After their 72 hours are up, arrest and forcibly give them the boot if they have not left yet.

Implode the building and put the site out for bid. With its location they should be able to get a pretty penny.

Nathan_OH on July 11, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Even if President Obama could get behind the idea, our current Congress won’t — and seeing how Congress has to ratify treaties, I don’t foresee the U.S. signing on to this. Preach it, Mr. LaPierre:

It will be deemed as ratified even though the ‘Rats will never get to 67 in the Senate.

Steve Eggleston on July 11, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Fast & Furious was no doubt timed to set the table for this.

Akzed on July 11, 2012 at 4:05 PM

No doubt here.

B-Ri on July 11, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Even if President Obama could get behind the idea, our current Congress won’t — and seeing how Congress has to ratify treaties, I don’t foresee the U.S. signing on to this.

Obama wants to bypass the Senate on this. Plus, in the Senate there are traitors like McCain and Lugar, who’re for this.

Schadenfreude on July 11, 2012 at 4:16 PM

I didn’t forsee the US socializing medicine.

DrAllecon on July 11, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Clearly someone stopped paying attention, sometime around the Johnson Administration.

JohnGalt23 on July 11, 2012 at 4:17 PM

JohnGalt23 on July 11, 2012 at 4:07 PM

What he said, X 2.

kirkill on July 11, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Get the US the hell out of the UN. Then kick their collectivist, globalist, espionage-ridden arses back to the shiiteholes from whence they came. JohnGalt23 on July 11, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Amen! Now buy us all a pint and it’ll be a perfect day.

Akzed on July 11, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Amnesty International USA say would rein in unregulated weapons that kill an estimated 1,500 people daily around the world.

Rwanda…800,000 dead in a 100 days.

What they mostly used…

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/machete-rwanda.jpg

Some clubs and spears were used as well as assault rifles.

sharrukin on July 11, 2012 at 4:18 PM

…the Mexican Drug Cartels are probably lobbying the UN…

KOOLAID2 on July 11, 2012 at 4:18 PM

A local cop here said he would never go door to door to confiscate firearms if so ordered, because it would be a suicide mission. He and other officers have had several informal discussions on the issue and he said his coworkers agreed with him.

txsurveyor on July 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM

You meant the Senate, not the Congress.

AZCoyote on July 11, 2012 at 4:09 PM

And if we do win in a landslide in November…

… Obowma and Reid would use the lame duck session to pass this every other anti-American treaty that is out there.

It would take an ammendment to the Constitution to fix it…

Seven Percent Solution on July 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Faced with the increasing likelihood that Obama won’t have a second term to complete his agenda to turn the country into a European socialist society, complete with gun control laws, what would keep him from issuing an EO approving the UN Arms Trade Treaty in July?

He and Hillary will sign it. Treaties, even if needed to be ratified by the Senate, are binding as of date of signature.

The thugs will sign it and then after them le déluge.

Schadenfreude on July 11, 2012 at 4:20 PM

F U
U N

KOOLAID2 on July 11, 2012 at 4:20 PM

From my cold dead hands.

Kataklysmic on July 11, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Who’d be dumb enough to sign up for collection duty?

That being said, the only one of mine they’ll ever see is the one being pointed at their head.

antipc on July 11, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Even if President Obama could get behind the idea, our current Congress won’t — and seeing how Congress has to ratify treaties, I don’t foresee the U.S. signing on to this.

The Senate ratifies treaties, and I could certainly see the current Senate going along with this. The House will have no say whatsoever.

dczombie on July 11, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Irony of them all, Iran will preside over negotiations on this at the U.N.

Schadenfreude on July 11, 2012 at 4:22 PM

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ – Molon Labe

Schadenfreude on July 11, 2012 at 4:23 PM

A local cop here said he would never go door to door to confiscate firearms if so ordered, because it would be a suicide mission. He and other officers have had several informal discussions on the issue and he said his coworkers agreed with him.

txsurveyor on July 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Whoever said it would be the locals that would be doing the bulk of the grabbing?

Steve Eggleston on July 11, 2012 at 4:24 PM

our current Congress won’t

Zero gives no s**t for Congress… have you been asleep the past few years?

Ryan Anthony on July 11, 2012 at 4:24 PM

While the treaty’s details are still under discussion, the document could straitjacket U.S. foreign policy to the point where Washington could be restricted from helping arm friends such as Taiwan and Israel

To the anti-Semites at the UN, that’s a feature, not a bug.

rbj on July 11, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Who’d be dumb enough to sign up for collection duty?

That being said, the only one of mine they’ll ever see is the one being pointed at their head.

antipc on July 11, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Chinese? Russians? Quite possibly a clean-up mission after an airstrike?

Steve Eggleston on July 11, 2012 at 4:26 PM

OBOZO failed to destroy the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans with his botched Fast and Furious scheme, so now he’ll try it again via his UN pals.

TeaPartyNation on July 11, 2012 at 4:26 PM

I have a concealed carry license in my great state of Texas. To quote Mr. Heston “you will have to pry my gun out of my cold, dead hand”. Let’s see….thousands of armed Texans vs UN…no contest…Texas all the way!

neyney on July 11, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Yeah, y’all stay home and not vote for Mitt Romney.

SouthernGent on July 11, 2012 at 4:28 PM

9th Amendment, 10th Amendment and 2nd Amendment under all rational interpretations would preclude the Senate and President from making a treaty on a subject over which they have no jurisdiction. I do not agree with guys like Dick Morris who say that if this treaty were ratified it would effectively nullify the 2nd Amendment.

If the Feds ratified a treaty with Turks and Caicos to regulate circumcision in both nations and to have the citizens of both countries subject to a foreign tribunal of 3 judges on all issues of circumcision…
Would that have the full force and effect of a Constitutional Amendment?

Treaties have limits….we’re probably about to find them out pretty soon.

Afterseven on July 11, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Just a heads-up!

H R 6079 RECORDED VOTE 11-Jul-2012 3:53 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act 2010
===================================

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll460.xml

canopfor on July 11, 2012 at 4:28 PM

No tyrannical dictator can allow his subjects to be armed and able to defend themselves.

TeaPartyNation on July 11, 2012 at 4:28 PM

The Senate ratifies treaties, and I could certainly see the current Senate going along with this…

dczombie on July 11, 2012 at 4:22 PM

I’m not so sure about that anymore. The chicken littles won’t even pass a tax increase “on the wealthy” that Democrats claim is widely popular. After the election I don’t see any Senators wanting to go home to the Cornhusker Kickback Pizza Parlor Treatment.

txhsmom on July 11, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Did not Obama sign an EO to give UN or Interpol jurisdiction rights to operate in the USA? I seem to remember something about this a few years ago after BIG SIS declares veterans and gun owner’s potential terrorists.

mechkiller_k on July 11, 2012 at 4:29 PM

The UN had to have been the model for the Imperial Senate of Star Wars. Maybe Obamao sees himself destined as the Emperor if he can just eliminate our Constitution and sovereignty once and for all and put us under UN control. He’s definitely on the dark side of the force….

dentarthurdent on July 11, 2012 at 4:30 PM

U.N. finalizing arms treaty to regulate weapons transfers worldwide
===================================================================

Oh that is really going to work out,and what about the countries
involved in arming Goon nations,uh huh!!

canopfor on July 11, 2012 at 4:30 PM

National Guard Confiscating Guns in New Orleans

The police and national guard did confiscate guns so thinking that it would never happen is delusional… because it already did.

sharrukin on July 11, 2012 at 4:31 PM

I understand Ralph Lauren is coming out with a new line of burquas. And these are the people who will decide who gets health care and who gets a midnight visit by the IRS.

If you aren’t involved in this election and if Obama and O’Malley have left you with a few dollars, send them to Republican candidates. I understand that the Republican Senate candidate in Maryland is only 10 points behind. And I do not care if the Republican is a RINO. We have got to take the Senate, keep the House and get this enemy of freedom back to Chicago.

Who was it here that said he’d vote for a beer can instead of Obama? Those conservatives who think we’d get a fresh start if we just let the left implode had best think about the Mexican Cartels and the Egyptian army knowing exactly where all our guns are located. If the US goes down–and it will go down–there is absolutely no country, no tribe, noone who will save us. Perhaps tiny Israel will try, but not one single other country. Europe’s hated the US since the end of the Marshall plan. They’d cheer our demise.

Portia46 on July 11, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Steve Eggleston on July 11, 2012 at 4:24 PM

I don’t know if the local LEO’s know anything more than we do about potential confiscation, just that they wouldn’t do it if ordered.

txsurveyor on July 11, 2012 at 4:32 PM

I’m not so sure about that anymore. The chicken littles won’t even pass a tax increase “on the wealthy” that Democrats claim is widely popular. After the election I don’t see any Senators wanting to go home to the Cornhusker Kickback Pizza Parlor Treatment.

txhsmom on July 11, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Treaties are also 2/3rds Senate majority votes, even in a worst case scenario I can’t imagine all GOP senators voting for this.

Unless Hussein does an EO again and McConnell lets it go again.

Its a crap shoot, by any measure.

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Increasingly the UN tries to create global authority for itself. The power to legislate, to tax, and even military powers.

I don’t see that UN as a joke. I see it as potentially dangerous. A gang of bullies who wish to determine the course of sovereign nations.

The United States and our allies should pull out of the UN forthwith and refuse them any more funding. We should insist that they remove themselves from our soil. They have become nothing more than a stage for the dictators and terrorists of the world to strut and preen. The organization is thoroughly corrupt, as evinced by the ongoing attempt to extort funds from the developed nations of the world to support those who will not take the necessary steps to support themselves.

The UN was a bad idea when it was created, and now the trepidations and reservations of those who didn’t support it then are being born out today.

thatsafactjack on July 11, 2012 at 4:33 PM

I meant to say “any GOP senators”…

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 4:33 PM

It would take 67 votes in the senate. That will not happen. And it is not law until it gets those votes.

Akzed on July 11, 2012 at 4:33 PM

National Guard Confiscating Guns in New Orleans

The police and national guard did confiscate guns so thinking that it would never happen is delusional… because it already did.

sharrukin on July 11, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Yup, and despite the rhetoric, not one single person resisted with armed force.

SWalker on July 11, 2012 at 4:35 PM

The United States and our allies should pull out of the UN forthwith and refuse them any more funding. We should insist that they remove themselves from our soil. They have become nothing more than a stage for the dictators and terrorists of the world to strut and preen. The organization is thoroughly corrupt, as evinced by the ongoing attempt to extort funds from the developed nations of the world to support those who will not take the necessary steps to support themselves.

The UN was a bad idea when it was created, and now the trepidations and reservations of those who didn’t support it then are being born out today.

thatsafactjack on July 11, 2012 at 4:33 PM

One more point Romney should run on. Not only cost savings to USA tapx payers, but when removed from USA soil NYC itself will be a better place with fewer free loaders running around committing crimes with impunity.

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Chinese? Russians? Quite possibly a clean-up mission after an airstrike?

Steve Eggleston on July 11, 2012 at 4:26 PM

That would be an act of war rather than disarmament.

antipc on July 11, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Would be nice if someone would get up and preach this kind of stuff while sounding like Morpheus during the cave scene on the second Matrix movie.

robertlbryant on July 11, 2012 at 4:35 PM

It would take 67 votes in the senate. That will not happen. And it is not law until it gets those votes.

Akzed on July 11, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Illegal immigration was also supposed to be ONLY lawful when passed through Congress. We all know how it went.

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Fast & Furious was no doubt timed to set the table for this.

Akzed on July 11, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Agreed. Everything was set to fall into place right around election time. After Obama was unanimously re-elected by voice vote, the 2nd amendment could be rescinded by executive order, followed by a second NPP. Sweet.

Finbar on July 11, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Not a prayer of passing. Even Democrats will vote against this one– heck, Joe Manchin will probably volunteer to be the GOP floor whip should it ever actually come to a vote.

MTF on July 11, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Not that it is so much comfort with Obama in the White House and in the aftermath of the Obamacare ruling, but treaties and international agreements do not trump the Constitution even if ratified by the Senate. In Reid v Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), the Court held:

“…[N]o agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in “pursuance” of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions.

Resist We Much on July 11, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Yup, and despite the rhetoric, not one single person resisted with armed force.

SWalker on July 11, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Would you? If half a dozen armed national guardsmen or police showed up at your door? It would be suicide because you would be as you say…”a single person”. If things like this start happening then only an organized group could possibly resist such measures.

sharrukin on July 11, 2012 at 4:39 PM

the United Nations is little more than an ineffective, morally squishy, highly corrupted joke of an international bureaucracy

Don’t mince words. How do you really feel about them? ;)

apostic on July 11, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Not a prayer of passing. Even Democrats will vote against this one– heck, Joe Manchin will probably volunteer to be the GOP floor whip should it ever actually come to a vote.

MTF on July 11, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Hussein wouldn’t work on this if he had no plans to enact it somehow. We’re forgetting that many a Hussein EO was not legal by definition, and yet Congress has yet to act against one.

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 4:39 PM

If you haven’t already join the NRA! Give Wayne LaPierre the support he needs!

shov74 on July 11, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Molon Labe

kurtzz3 on July 11, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Resist We Much on July 11, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Like I said, in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Thanks for providing the cite, though. I’m too lazy find it for the rest of us. ;)

totherightofthem on July 11, 2012 at 4:40 PM

58 U.S. senators had signed a letter saying that they would refuse to ratify any treaty that includes controls over civilian guns or ammunition.

What about the other 42 Senators? Last time I checked, there were still 100.

BacaDog on July 11, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Resist We Much on July 11, 2012 at 4:38 PM

And yet a number of courts recently sided with Sharia laws, no?

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Would be nice if someone would get up and preach this kind of stuff while sounding like Morpheus during the cave scene on the second Matrix movie.

robertlbryant on July 11, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Unfortunately Laurence Fishburne is a racist and clueless obamatron.

dentarthurdent on July 11, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Senate set to approve this beast, with help from the right. See McCain and Lugar, likely Miss Lindsey and the Maine sisters and etc.

Plus

The Senate is also considering another U.N. based treaty called “The Law of the Sea,” which is intended to regulate international waterways but would hand over U.S. sovereignty to international entities, according to critics.

President Reagan refused to approve the treaty in 1982 due to sovereignty issues. But Obama and Hillary Clinton have pushed for its ratification.

Schadenfreude on July 11, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Illegal immigration was also supposed to be ONLY lawful when passed through Congress. We all know how it went. riddick on July 11, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Telling his minions not to enforce the law under a highly questionable use of prosecutorial discretion is a lot different than rescinding a portion of the Bill of Rights and ceding law enforcement and judicial power to foreign entities, wouldn’t you say? I mean, if you thought about it?

Akzed on July 11, 2012 at 4:42 PM

After the recent FullRoberts does anyone think Hussein does not have a back door for this already primed and ready?

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 4:42 PM

The 2nd amendment is a huge reason why I support Gary Johnson. He has always been a strong defender of our 2nd amendment rights and has never been a gun grabber like Obama and Romney have. Gary isn’t a statist like the others, either, so I can say with confidence that he would not only defend our own rights but would work against such measures at the UN to prevent the rest of the world from being subjugated as well.

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Resist We Much on July 11, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Yes, good lady, but from the moment of signature the treaty stands…and all the court process could take years, if at best it ever happens.

The Law of the Sea is another giveaway by McCain and Lugar.

Schadenfreude on July 11, 2012 at 4:43 PM

I mean, if you thought about it?

Akzed on July 11, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Absolutely! You keep missing my point, though. How many of Hussein’s EOs are not lawful? And yet, they still stand, one way or another.

Anyine making a bet on Roberts these days is seriously delusional.

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 4:44 PM

What about the other 42 Senators? Last time I checked, there were still 100.

BacaDog on July 11, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Yes – and it requires 67 to ratify a treaty. So if 58 say up front they will NOT support it, there is no way to get the 67 votes required to ratify the treaty – unless you use some form of dimocrat math.

dentarthurdent on July 11, 2012 at 4:46 PM

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 4:43 PM

For chris’s sake, man. I am as anti-Romney as it gets and yet even I am now asking you to let his crap go, you make no sense whatsoever any longer.

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 4:47 PM

“If they come for my guns, I’ll give ‘em the bullets first.”

SailorMark on July 11, 2012 at 4:47 PM

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 4:47 PM

/rude gesture

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 4:48 PM

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 4:44 PM

EO’s are only EO’s and can be voided by the next POTUS.

Yes, good lady, but from the moment of signature the treaty stands…and all the court process could take years, if at best it ever happens. Schadenfreude on July 11, 2012 at 4:43 PM

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.

Akzed on July 11, 2012 at 4:48 PM

EO’s are only EO’s and can be voided by the next POTUS.

That’s one mighty assumption. They stand until VOIDED, as you say. I’ve yet to hear anyone clearly say they will be voided.

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 4:50 PM

For chris’s sake, man. I am as anti-Romney as it gets and yet even I am now asking you to let his crap go, you make no sense whatsoever any longer.

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 4:47 PM

SPITE… Pure and simple, his messiah was soundly rejected by America, now he and his fellow lunatics are trying to get revenge on America for rejecting Herr Doktor…

SWalker on July 11, 2012 at 4:52 PM

That’s one mighty assumption. They stand until VOIDED, as you say. I’ve yet to hear anyone clearly say they will be voided. riddick on July 11, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Here’s a thread on EO’s if you’re interested in discussing EO’s.

Akzed on July 11, 2012 at 4:53 PM

For chris’s sake, man. I am as anti-Romney as it gets and yet even I am now asking you to let his crap go, you make no sense whatsoever any longer.

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 4:47 PM

So I’m here on a so-called “Republican” web site and I’m defending the 2nd amendment against gun grabbers and I’m being told to shut up. So when did the Republican Party give up on the 2nd? Was it when they nominated Romney or before? Whenever it was, it was prior to now. Now people are supposed to bury the 2nd amendment and vote “get their ass in line”, as Boehner said to the tea party during the debt ceiling vote. And that’s what they did, the tea party got their ass in line and hopped right in bed with the establishment, lickity split.

Now people who espouse traditional “Republican” values like the 2nd amendment are just supposed to shut up. Well FU, Riddick!

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 4:53 PM

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 4:43 PM

You’re just pissin in the wind. Whether you like it or not, we have essentially a 2 party system in this country. The reality is if you vote for a 3rd party candidate you’re either throwing away your vote, or defaulting your vote to the other side. I made that mistake with Perot when I was a lot younger. Reality is sometimes a hard pill to swallow, but your choices this time around are Obama and Romney – take your pick because the winner WILL be one of those 2.

dentarthurdent on July 11, 2012 at 4:54 PM

seeing how the Senate has to ratify treaties, I don’t foresee the U.S. signing on to this.

Well, that’s to be seen, if Obama is re-elected.

EO’s are only EO’s and can be voided by the next POTUS.

That’s one mighty assumption. They stand until VOIDED, as you say. I’ve yet to hear anyone clearly say they will be voided.

Again, that’s to be seen, provided we even have a next POTUS, and one who has a political, ethical and moral ideology completely opposite of the current POTUS.

hawkeye54 on July 11, 2012 at 4:54 PM

That would be an act of war rather than disarmament.

antipc on July 11, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Who’s going to declare it, Harry Reid? Unless there’s 60 R’s in the Senate, he is the only member of Congress who matters.

Steve Eggleston on July 11, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Unprincipled hacks aside, 2nd amendment supporters like me need to hold the line and vote for a true 2nd amendment supporter like Gary. Don’t give up without a fight.

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Dems in Senate would ratify it, if they could.

I expect Øbama to make some weasely ‘temporary’ or ‘interim’ agreement by EO.

Once the UN was benign. Incompetent and corrupt, but basically benign. In recent decades it has morphed from benign to malignant, an aggressive threat to our security, sovereignty and way of life. It needs to be defunded.

petefrt on July 11, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Now people who espouse traditional “Republican” values like the 2nd amendment are just supposed to shut up. Well FU, Riddick!

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 4:53 PM

My last response to you as I will stay on topic of the tread:

I liked Gary Johnson, up front, reading a few tings about his governorship in NM, and then I saw him a GOP debate. The man is delusional and obviously attracts similar contingent as his supporters.

I am done discussing moronism.

Have a nice day.

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 4:57 PM

You know how there are national al commerative days for anything and everything?
(Feb. 12 is National Bad Decision Day)

Maybe we should have a National 2nd Ammendment Day.
A day when Americans fire their weapons in celebration.

I’m not talking about like some crazed Third World mob firing their weapons into the air, waiting for the bullets to come down, killing a half dozen people. Or some gang bangers in Chicago killing each other every day of the year.

I’m talking about a day when legal gun owners celebrate their 2nd Ammendment rights. Going to the shooting range, taking some target practice, enrolling your children in gun safety classes, etc.

I suggest having it the day after Presidential elections. Just to serve as a reminder…..

MichaelGabriel on July 11, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Yeah, just try it. Then, they gonna have somebody goin all Wolverines! on dey azzes.

BigAlSouth on July 11, 2012 at 5:00 PM

What about the other 42 Senators? Last time I checked, there were still 100.

BacaDog on July 11, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Unless there are 60 Republicans, there is exactly one person who matter. I can count the number of things Dingy Harry Reid objected to that made it through the Senate since Janurary 2011 on one hadn and have digits left.

Steve Eggleston on July 11, 2012 at 5:00 PM

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Your first mistake is assuming HA is a “Republican” web site. It is very definitely conservative – but that’s not the same thing as “Republican”.

If all you did was support 2nd Amendment rights, only the lib trolls would argue with you. But you keep pushing a 3rd party candidate who has no chance at all of winning this election. Most of the conservative posters on HA are realistic and pragmatic enough to understand that at this point in the race we either get behind Romney or we get another 4 years of Obamao.

dentarthurdent on July 11, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Who’s going to declare it, Harry Reid? Unless there’s 60 R’s in the Senate, he is the only member of Congress who matters.

Steve Eggleston on July 11, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Thanks for seeing the obvious based on FACTS of the past few years. Roberts, our Chief Justice, pissed on the Constitution, openly and proudly, and yet somehow people believe in something called “amendments” and such.

Like I said, if Hussein is pushing this through, then I am absolutely sure he and his cabal already have a way to get this done.

riddick on July 11, 2012 at 5:01 PM

There is no way Barry is going to find 60 Senators who will approve this treaty.

If he’s true to form, Harry Reid won’t even bring it up for a vote.

GarandFan on July 11, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3