Will Obama sign the Arms Trade Treaty?

posted at 7:21 pm on July 20, 2012 by J.E. Dyer

The UN-sponsored Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is being negotiated and finalized this month.  Adding spice to the proceedings is the election of Iran – yes, Iran – to the 15-member governing body overseeing the treaty draft.  Who wouldn’t want Iran coming up with ways to control America’s trade in arms, after all?

Kim Holmes of the Heritage Foundation critiqued the extant draft of the treaty in the Washington Times on 11 July, pointing out, essentially, that its language will work to the advantage of whoever has the most popular cause in the UN.  Russia and China, for example, could justify all their arms sales under the category of national security, whereas the US could be charged with “keeping conflicts going” by selling arms to Taiwan or Israel (or Japan or the UK, for that matter).

She also makes the case that the mere existence of the treaty, even if the US Senate doesn’t ratify it, will provide a ready slate of off-the-shelf provisions for Congress to incorporate into US law.  Other commentators have pointed out that Obama could, in theory, sign the treaty and develop executive-agency enforcement procedures against the US arms industry and American gun-owners, which Congress would have difficulty preventing.

Executive “initiative” has been a common practice of the Obama administration, and in the case of the drilling moratorium, was adhered to in the face of court orders to cease and desist.  A great deal of the traditional strength of checks and balances has been undermined during the Obama administration.  It is sensible to be concerned about unilateral “enforcement” of the Arms Trade Treaty by the Obama executive.  Court challenges might well not be dealt with before the end of Obama’s term.

Heritage analyst Ted Bromund testified at the Arms Trade Treaty Conference on 11 July, making the following points:

Supporters of the ATT argue that we need it to raise national standards on the import, export, and transfer of arms. But if any nation wishes to raise its standards, it is free to do so now. The fact is that many U.N. member states have neither the desire nor the ability to raise their standards. A treaty will not compel or enable them to do so.

The U.N. Security Council has adopted embargoes against the shipment of arms to particular nations. It has called on all U.N. member states to eliminate the supply of arms to terrorists. These embargoes and resolutions are regularly violated.

The ATT’s proponents claim that this is why we need the ATT. But it is a fantasy to believe that a universal ATT, backed by nothing more than the words of the treaty itself, will succeed where the Security Council, backed by the authority of Chapter 7 [of the U.N. charter], has failed.

The ATT will not limit the ability of terrorists to acquire arms. The reason for this is simple: The U.N. has never defined terrorism, because some member states insist that terrorist groups like Hamas are struggling against so-called foreign occupation.

A key point from both Bromund and Holmes is that the treaty will merely be an excuse for selective, politically motivated attacks on some member states (and possibly populations, such as US gun owners).  The treaty’s consequences will depend entirely on how it’s enforced, since none of its meanings or definitions is precise or ironclad.  Iran, for example, on being elected to her new dignities, promptly clarified (euphemistically, but intelligibly) that the Arms Trade Treaty should not restrain Iran’s ability to acquire nuclear weapons.

This is an idiotic treaty: one which our enemies could use to claim – before the World Court, presumably – that the US is promoting violence and instability, but which will not be interpreted to restrict the kinds of weapons radical Iran can buy or sell.  Indeed, Iran’s position seems to be that the treaty should “urge member states to avoid resorting to any kind of aggressive measures against other member states,” which would be well outside the purpose or scope of this treaty, and suggests that separate political motives are the main thing going on with Iran’s participation in drafting it.

Maybe we can trust Russia and China not to sign up for this thing.  At any rate, as a practical matter for American life in the next six months, the question for us is what Obama will do.

I find it hard to predict.  Obama has gone so far from the mainstream of US politics in the last year that it’s hardly out of the question that he might sign the treaty at the end of the summer, and perhaps even implement enforcement measures of some kind in the US.  I doubt that such enforcement would include the “nightmare” gun-grabbing scenarios described at many websites; I think it would probably be limited to increased regulation of firearm manufacturers and vendors, at least for now.  But Obama has doubled down on a lot of things that most Americans would have considered unthinkable four years ago.  It’s not credible to insist that he wouldn’t take executive action unilaterally.

But it’s still a question.  Practical politics says you don’t provoke gun owners just before your next election.  The National Rifle Association is still one of the handful of groups that can seriously clobber the halls of government with a citizen outcry.  I’m not sure anything would galvanize voters as much as Obama signing the Arms Trade Treaty; not only could it determine Obama’s fate in November, but it could well affect the outcomes in Congressional and state races as well.

It’s an important question how well Obama understands the firestorm, and the reaction from other branches and levels of government, that he would stir up by signing the treaty.  The right to bear arms is one of the very few that citizens still generally interpret the same way, can locate in the US Constitution, and – whether they are for it or against it – understand to be a uniquely American guarantee.

I believe the meaning of our Second Amendment rights is more solidly understood by the populace than even our right to freedom of religion.  Only the freedoms of speech, press, and religion – and the right to remain silent – are as sacred and identifiable to most Americans as the right to bear arms.  I know Obama and his advisors move in a climate of urban-elite leftism, but it would be remarkable if they were so out of touch as to dismiss the electoral significance of appearing to override the Second Amendment.

The administration hasn’t even made a concerted public case for the treaty – an onslaught of soundbites and narratives – as it has with other plans for regulation like Obamacare, “net neutrality,” and environmental regulations.  Maybe it has felt that that would be impolitic.  If so, perhaps that excellent instinct for political self-preservation will induce Obama to shelve this one until after the election.

What say you, readers?

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


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

Probably but it won’t matter. If we can get 34 Senators to say nyet to the LOST treaty, we’ll probably get twice that number to say no to this one.

Plus, there’s no way to disarm America. 100,000,000 firearms in private hands is one helluva militia.

platypus on July 20, 2012 at 7:24 PM

I may have not studied on this particular treaty and so, but am I to assume it passed the Senate on a two-thirds majority vote? It doesn’t matter how many times he signs this it wouldn’t be rule of law until then.

Then again he would jusr enforce it regardless. The administration seems to enjoy acting like a dictator nowadays.

eva3071 on July 20, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Will Obama sign the Arms Trade Treaty?

In a NY minute. In a heartbeat. Before you can say “boo”.

petefrt on July 20, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Events today may give him imagined leverage. That old never let a crisis go to waste thngy.

a capella on July 20, 2012 at 7:26 PM

But it’s still a question. Practical politics says you don’t provoke gun owners just before your next election.

Is there a time limit on the treaty that forces him to sign it before the election, or could he sign it right after, win or lose?

sharrukin on July 20, 2012 at 7:28 PM

If this is signed everything that I own is being buried in the mountains. I will not be without my arms when the time comes that they are most needed.

donkichi on July 20, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Will Obama sign the Arms Trade Treaty?

In a NY minute. In a heartbeat. Before you can say “boo”.

petefrt

‘Boo’ is not the first word that comes to mind.

chimney sweep on July 20, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Only if Holder can walk the weapons.

RAGIN CAJUN on July 20, 2012 at 7:30 PM

What say you, readers?

J.E. Dyer

Its interesting.

It’s an important question how well Obama understands the firestorm, and the reaction from other branches and levels of government, that he would stir up by signing the treaty.

If he thinks he’s gonna’ lose come November, that’s just one of the things he will do.

She also makes the case that the mere existence of the treaty, even if the US Senate doesn’t ratify it, will provide a ready slate of off-the-shelf provisions for Congress to incorporate into US law.

Like they need an excuse now.

cozmo on July 20, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Expect Obama to sign it and the lame duck Dem Senate to ratify it:

Obama’s Secret Gun Control plan! Dick Morris TV

Bank on it.

petefrt on July 20, 2012 at 7:32 PM

…and the lame duck Dem Senate to ratify it:

Bank on it.

petefrt on July 20, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Nope, not enough votes.

cozmo on July 20, 2012 at 7:34 PM

A great deal of the traditional strength of checks and balances has been undermined during the Obama administration.

Barry signs this treaty, then starts enforcing it via Executive Order, he’d better get his lawyers ready for THE IMPEACHMENT.

GarandFan on July 20, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Listing to Lib radio this afternoon (oppo research…) I was told that citizens having guns doesn’t solve anything, and actually is the cause of crimes like the theatre shooting, and the Second Amendment is a privilege, not a right. Oh, and recreational arms use is outdated and dangerous.

Apparently, the Palms Internet Cafe event (and hundreds more like it) aren’t good enough for some people to demonstrate that armed innocents prevent crimes. We have cops, right? Isn’t that enough? After all, they did eventually respond to the scene last night, after seventy-one people were shoot. What more do you want?

Those people think the ATT is stunningly brilliant, and will end crime as we know it.

ChicagoJewishGuy on July 20, 2012 at 7:35 PM

The Senate would never ratify the treaty but what if Harry Reid refuses to bring it up for a vote?

Right now I suspect polls are too close for Obama to risk signing it before the election. After the election will depend on how the election goes. If it looks like it would only last until January 20, what would be the point? But if Obama is reelected and the Democrats retain control of the Senate then I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if he signs it.

Rip Ford on July 20, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Of course he’s going to sign it.

Just an idea: Disassemble, get a PVC tube and fill it with nitrogen, cap it, and bury it deep with ammo.

Liam on July 20, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Is there a time limit on the treaty that forces him to sign it before the election, or could he sign it right after, win or lose?

sharrukin on July 20, 2012 at 7:28 PM

No, it can sit for years. But my guess, he lets Hilary sign it, quietly hopes no one including NRA really notices in a way that creates a media stir, then after the election if he wins he takes action if the dem Senate environment is favorable or else if he wins but loses Senate, he does nothing for the next 4 years while the bureaucracy quietly implements the Treaty’s provisions.

Falcon46 on July 20, 2012 at 7:38 PM

There’s no point in passing new laws to try and prevent Obama from ignoring existing law.

Wigglesworth on July 20, 2012 at 7:39 PM

No, it can sit for years. But my guess, he lets Hilary sign it, quietly hopes no one including NRA really notices in a way that creates a media stir, then after the election if he wins he takes action if the dem Senate environment is favorable or else if he wins but loses Senate, he does nothing for the next 4 years while the bureaucracy quietly implements the Treaty’s provisions.

Falcon46 on July 20, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Someone up thread mentioned the possibility of Reid not even allowing a vote on it and then proceeding with the treaty anyway. I think its more likely to happen after the election than before but Obama does some remarkably stupid things, so who knows?

sharrukin on July 20, 2012 at 7:41 PM

He can sign whatever he wants; it will NOT trump the Second Amendment…

Khun Joe on July 20, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Barry signs this treaty, then starts enforcing it via Executive Order, he’d better get his lawyers ready for THE IMPEACHMENT.

GarandFan on July 20, 2012 at 7:34 PM

And which of the gutless wonder Repunks will
even mention Impeachment?
They have had ample reason to hold this usrpers feet to the Impeachbment fires but are afraid of his Presstitutes. Until we vote out the old fossils and replace them with true patriots we are in grave danger as Barky the Dog Eater will do as he wishes and rub our noses in it.

ConcealedKerry on July 20, 2012 at 7:43 PM

I contacted my reps on this.

Schumer gave me a BS, without addressing my concern about the treaty.

Gillibrand never wrote back.

Higgens said that, if the treaty is signed, there is a bill that cuts off all funding to the UN.

Pfffft!

PVC, nitrogen, bury deep.

Liam on July 20, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Will Obama sign the Arms Trade Treaty?

In a NY minute. In a heartbeat. Before you can say “boo”.

petefrt

‘Boo’ is not the first word that comes to mind.

chimney sweep on July 20, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Boo chit.

davidk on July 20, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Nobody cares what this POS does.

He’s Urkel with a podium, two teleprompters and a microphone. That’s it folks. That’s all he is. Scram!

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Will Obama will sign it, YES he will and he will sign it using his own blood for dramatic effect, as he signs it, he will use this tragedy in Colorado to push it, the liberal media will cry tears of joy and sing his praises. Remember liberals want a disarmed populous, it will be much easier for the left to force their socialism on the American people if the people have no means of resistance.

Beastdogs on July 20, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Only a fool would sign on. Only an absolute fool would sign on before election. So, is he a fool, or an absolute fool?

Bmore on July 20, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Just an idea: Disassemble, get a PVC tube and fill it with nitrogen, cap it, and bury it deep with ammo.

Liam on July 20, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Why on Earth would you do that?

cozmo on July 20, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Only a fool would sign on. Only an absolute fool would sign on before election. So, is he a fool, or an absolute fool?

Bmore on July 20, 2012 at 7:45 PM

He’s destructive.

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Nope, not enough votes.

cozmo on July 20, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Hope you’re right.

petefrt on July 20, 2012 at 7:48 PM

And..

John Roberts will cast the deciding vote to uphold this as Constitutional in the inevitable challenge.

Joe Mama on July 20, 2012 at 7:48 PM

We should tell the European Union that we will have to abandon guarding their oil supply if it signed. Remember they ran out of munitions after the first couple strikes against the “Libyan powerhouse”. They have ships, but they can’t leave port, because they they would have to staff and supply them. The UK I’m sure would like China drilling for oil in the North Sea outside their 12 mile limit! The US needs to recruit these theoretical do-gooders and show them how their very existence is dependent on the US.

KenInIL on July 20, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Only a fool Democrat would sign on. Only an absolute fool total Democrat would sign on before election. So, is he a fool socialist, or an absolute fool Democrat?

Bmore on July 20, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Sought the true bottom line here.

Liam on July 20, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Hope you’re right.

petefrt on July 20, 2012 at 7:48 PM

It takes 2/3rds of senate to ratify treaties. Ain’t, gonna’, happen.

cozmo on July 20, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Why on Earth would you do that?

cozmo on July 20, 2012 at 7:46 PM

I didn’t mean every last one.

Liam on July 20, 2012 at 7:51 PM

The National Rifle Association is still one of the handful of groups that can seriously clobber the halls of government with a citizen outcry.

They better go full bore now as if Herr Obama is reelected they will be swimming up stream for sure.

RasThavas on July 20, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Obama can sign a pair of socks, or he can sign his wife’s ass (that’d be a HUGE signature), he can sign my driveway using sidewalk chalk, he can sign my baseball cap, or he could sign my fat kid’s bike seat at a yard sale, or Obama could sign a bumper sticker at a campaign stop; he could sign whatever he wants, even his own baseball card (it’ll come to that in the future).

Obama does not matter anymore. That’s it. He doesn’t matter. He was NewsFiction. A flash in the pan. A black guy that some douchegab (sic) picked up from the streets of Chicago and made a star. And Obama actually believed it.

Obama does not matter. America matters.

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Obama has already made it clear that he regards most Americans, particularly those who disagree with his policies and ideology, as imbeciles ( Chris Matthews suggested he actually address us as one would a ‘two year old’) whom he has referred to as clinging ‘to their guns and religion’.

He has a deep seated disdain for the American people and he has demonstrated it repeatedly and in a variety of ways.

Hes resorted to regularly bypassing congress, and when he does that he literally bypasses the American people since those members of congress were duly elected as our proxies in legislating, thus determining this nations laws. He has chosen to rule by his will alone in the form of the Executive Order.

Why should we believe that he would respect the Constitution, the law of the land, and the rights of the American people recognized therein?

thatsafactjack on July 20, 2012 at 7:53 PM

He’s destructive.

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Yes, here’s to him becoming self destructive. Even more so, than he has been. *clink!*

Bmore on July 20, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Obama can sign a pair of socks, or he can sign his wife’s ass (that’d be a HUGE signature),

I bet you that Obama’s signature is small, not flamboyant and expansive at all like a self-secure person would sign.

Liam on July 20, 2012 at 7:54 PM

There’s no point in passing new laws to try and prevent Obama from ignoring existing law.

Wigglesworth on July 20, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Yep. Ad a couple others upthread missed this point in the article. As long as Odumbo is allowed to ignore laws he doesn’t like, it does not matter whether the Senate ratifies.

Like the GOP legislation introduced a couple of days ago regarding work requirements for welfare. The legislation basically said, “This old law from 1993 is still a law.” (!?!?!)

Emperor Barack.

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Sought the true bottom line here.

Liam on July 20, 2012 at 7:48 PM

His half black side will understand my use of fool. ; )

Bmore on July 20, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Why should we believe that he would respect the Constitution, the law of the land, and the rights of the American people recognized therein?

thatsafactjack on July 20, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Dunno. I can’t see his history.

For the first time in my life, I don’t know who POTUS is.

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 7:57 PM

As long as Odumbo is allowed to ignore laws he doesn’t like, it does not matter whether the Senate ratifies.

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Yes, that is the larger point, isn’t it.

petefrt on July 20, 2012 at 7:58 PM

…if it’s not good for the USA….POS…BHO…will have his pens out! (no! there was no i after the n!)…JugEars will cry “Where do I sign?”

KOOLAID2 on July 20, 2012 at 7:59 PM

It’s my understanding it’s enforcable without being ratified. It stands until it’s voted on. And we know dingy harry won’t allow a vote.

wolly4321 on July 20, 2012 at 7:59 PM

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Nope.

Days. Three months and about 8 days.

Hang on.Hang On

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 8:00 PM

If he tries to subvert the second amendment with his executive action I will carry out my oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC!

Doomsday on July 20, 2012 at 8:01 PM

He will shelf it until after the election, if he is re-elected he will sign it and depending on the outcome of the Senate elections, He will push Democrats in the Senate to ratify it during the lame duck session (if that is even possible) or after the election.

If he losses the election then he will push for the lame duck senate to ratify it before his term expires.

As much as I dislike Harry Reid, his pro 2nd amendment votes over the years have helped, I doubt an re-election loss will stop Obama from pushing this thru in a lame duck session giving Harry Reid’s record.

F15Mech on July 20, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Stealth approval if Reid never takes it up for a vote. Treaties in force until voted down by the Senate.

ProfShadow on July 20, 2012 at 8:03 PM

His half black side will understand my use of fool. ; )

Bmore on July 20, 2012 at 7:56 PM

And his half-white side is why Democrats try making him to be black when he ‘fully’ isn’t. I bet there is more slave history in the family line of Clarence Thomas than there is in Obama’s.

If Obama wasn’t half-white, the Dems would never have allowed him, let alone wanted him.

As Clinton said: “A few years ago, this guy would have been serving us coffee.”

Liam on July 20, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Well, the rich elitists do prefer One World Government, ya know.

For the rest of the world, it’d allow their govt. fat cats to get their hands on US wealth.

For US govt. fat cats, it’d allow them to point their grubby fingers “across the pond” and say, “We’re not doing this to you–it’s them.”

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 8:03 PM

It’s my understanding it’s enforcable without being ratified. It stands until it’s voted on. And we know dingy harry won’t allow a vote.

wolly4321 on July 20, 2012 at 7:59 PM

No, it is not.

Best regards,

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 8:04 PM

It’s my understanding it’s enforceable without being ratified. It stands until it’s voted on. And we know dingy harry won’t allow a vote.

wolly4321 on July 20, 2012 at 7:59 PM

That’s my understanding too.

petefrt on July 20, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Stealth approval if Reid never takes it up for a vote. Treaties in force until voted down by the Senate.

ProfShadow on July 20, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Feh, quit ginnin’ it up.

And stop being deceptive.

Thank you

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Dick Morris says otherwise. Linky, pls, so I can learn (more) from you.

petefrt on July 20, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Hang on.Hang On

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Lol. I both admire and (desperately) need your optimism.

(Not to try to knock you down, but though I have my fingers crossed for the presidential election, I highly doubt a Senate takeover. That numbskull Reid will keep his job.)

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 8:07 PM

It’s my understanding it’s enforceable without being ratified. It stands until it’s voted on. And we know dingy harry won’t allow a vote.

wolly4321 on July 20, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Really?

You get to post on Hot Air and you do this?

What a waste of a privilege.

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Dick Morris says otherwise. Linky, pls, so I can learn (more) from you.

petefrt on July 20, 2012 at 8:06 PM

With all due respect to Dick Morris, he is selling a book.

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 8:09 PM

No one thought that he would undermine the “Clinton Legacy” of Welfare reform, but he did.

No one thought he would tell Courts to piss off over Oil drilling when Oil prices are so high and Americans are hurting, but he did.

No one thought he would close Republican donor car dealerships in the face of the Fascistic Hypocrisy that would represent, but he did.

And on and on.

Yes, he will do it because…he “Won”.

Bulletchaser on July 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Obama pushed through his health care bill and signed it even though it cost him the House and will probably sink his re-election. Will he sign ATT? I’d bet money the answer is: Yes. His leftist ideology is the only thing holding his fragile psyche together at this point.

Socratease on July 20, 2012 at 8:11 PM

KWR, I’m going by what some pretty smart folks have said/written. It would be great if you could show me in law where I am wrong. I’d sleep easier if you could. Honestly, I pray you are right, but I don’t think you are. All it takes is hillarys pen.

wolly4321 on July 20, 2012 at 8:14 PM

petefrt on July 20, 2012 at 8:06 PM
wolly4321 on July 20, 2012 at 7:59 PM
Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 8:09 PM

It’s my understanding that the Senate must ratify all treaties (or not, of course).

The article talks about Obama’s (almost incessant, these days) unilateral action when Congress doesn’t pass what he wants, or passes something he doesn’t like.

Perhaps that’s what you guys (who say it’s in force until a vote) are talking about?

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 8:15 PM

http://www.asil.org/insigh10.cfm

Not all international agreements negotiated by the United States are submitted to the Senate for its consent. Sometimes the Executive Branch negotiates an agreement that is intended to be binding only if sent to the Senate, but the President for political reasons decides not to seek its consent. Often, however, the Executive Branch negotiates agreements that are intended to be binding without the consent of two-thirds of the Senate. Sometimes these agreements are entered into with the concurrence of a simple majority of both houses of Congress (“Congressional-Executive agreements”); in these cases the concurrence may be given either before or after the Executive Branch negotiates the agreement. On other occasions the President simply enters into an agreement without the intended or actual participation of either house of Congress (a “Presidential,” or “Sole Executive” agreement). The extent of the President’s authority to enter into Sole Executive agreements is controversial, as will be noted below.

The President’s authority to enter into Sole Executive agreements, however, is thought not to be so broad. Clearly, the President has some authority to do so in his capacities as commander in chief of the armed forces and as “chief diplomat.” Thus, armistice agreements and certain agreements incidental to the operation of foreign embassies in the United States could be done as Sole Executive Agreements. The agreement-making scope of these two sources of Presidential authority is nevertheless somewhat vague.

Presidents have sometimes asserted agreement-making authority stemming directly from the basic constitutional grant to the President of executive power. If this grant includes some authority to enter into Sole Executive agreements independently from more specific grants of presidential power, it would be difficult to ascertain what limits, short of those imposed on the government itself by the Bill of Rights, there might be to it. For this reason, many members of Congress and others have disputed any claim by a President to base agreement-making authority solely on the grant of executive power.

Even if a treaty or other international agreement is non-self-executing, it may have an indirect effect in U. S. courts. The courts’ practice, mentioned above, of interpreting acts of Congress as consistent with earlier international agreements applies to earlier non-self-executing agreements as well as to self-executing ones, since in either case the agreement is binding internationally and courts are slow to place the United States in breach of its international obligations. In addition, if state or local law is inconsistent with an international agreement of the United States, the courts will not allow the law to stand. The reason, if the international agreement is a self-executing treaty, is that such a treaty has the same effect in domestic courts as an act of Congress and therefore directly supersedes any inconsistent state or local law. If the international agreement is a non-self-executing treaty, it would not supersede inconsistent state or local law in the same way a federal statute would, but the courts nevertheless would not permit a state of the union to force the United States to breach its international obligation to other countries under the agreement. The state or local law would be struck down as an interference with the federal government’s power over foreign affairs.

sharrukin on July 20, 2012 at 8:15 PM

You can have my guns, one bullet at a time.

It’s my understanding it’s enforcable without being ratified. It stands until it’s voted on. And we know dingy harry won’t allow a vote. wolly4321 on July 20, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

It’s only Wikipedia, but they got it right.

Akzed on July 20, 2012 at 8:16 PM

KWR, I’m going by what some pretty smart folks have said/written. It would be great if you could show me in law where I am wrong. I’d sleep easier if you could. Honestly, I pray you are right, but I don’t think you are. All it takes is hillarys pen. wolly4321 on July 20, 2012 at 8:14 PM

See above, and take a nap.

Akzed on July 20, 2012 at 8:18 PM

wolly4321 on July 20, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Is it Article II Section II of the Constitution?

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 8:18 PM

KWR- really? Priviledge?

I just disagree with you. Did I deserve that?

wolly4321 on July 20, 2012 at 8:19 PM

His leftist ideology is the only thing holding his fragile psyche together at this point.

Socratease on July 20, 2012 at 8:11 PM

I would debate there.

His fragile psyche uses leftism to support it, because leftism is a domineering mindset. It also allows him to remain wealthy.

Leftism for Obama, in my view, is a vehicle for him. I don’t think he believes in Leftism, per se. It’s just a way for him to perpetuate his self-deluded fantasy of being in control.

Conservatism doesn’t afford a narcissist that kind of thing. Only liberalism does.

Liam on July 20, 2012 at 8:19 PM

sharrukin on July 20, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Great post. Thanks.

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 8:20 PM

sharrukin on July 20, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Great post. Thanks.

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 8:20 PM

It looks like there is enough ambiguity that they could perhaps try something. The treaty is supposed to be what is called ‘self-executing’ but that is left to a court to decide, and I have lost some faith in them following John Roberts Big Adventure in reading between the lines.

sharrukin on July 20, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Did I deserve that?

wolly4321 on July 20, 2012 at 8:19 PM

No. It was a bit rude. (I don’t suppose you attended the Palin threads at all, did you? Lol.)

I suppose you already read this post:
sharrukin on July 20, 2012 at 8:15 PM
(It’s a very informative article. Thanks again, sharrukin.)

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 8:24 PM

I do believe we pissed that away with the signing of a prior UN treaty. Dick Morris isn’t right often, but this has legs. Why the hell else would hillary sign it?

For God sake, quit being naive and attacking me for discussing it.

wolly4321 on July 20, 2012 at 8:25 PM

I have lost some faith in them following John Roberts Big Adventure in reading between the lines.

sharrukin on July 20, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Yeah, and as I and a few others on this thread have said, nobody’s making much of an ado about Obama saying he’s going to ignore immigration laws he doesn’t agree with. Etc., etc…

(So much willful disregard for laws, and no one has done anything. I can understand your lack of faith.)

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 8:28 PM

So are people going to stay home and not vote because they don’t like Mitt? Do you think Romey would sign this treaty? Everyone of us must vote for Romney and make sure we defeat Obama. I know people don’t like him, I know people think he is a progressive. I know. But for the love of God and Country we must defeat Obama. Elections have consequences.

magicbeans on July 20, 2012 at 8:30 PM

wolly4321 on July 20, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Who’s attacking you now?
(BTW, I hope you don’t think it’s me. If so, you’re misunderstanding.)

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Redcrow- yes indeed that was informative.

wolly4321 on July 20, 2012 at 8:30 PM

The article talks about Obama’s (almost incessant, these days) unilateral action when Congress doesn’t pass what he wants, or passes something he doesn’t like.

Perhaps that’s what you guys (who say it’s in force until a vote) are talking about?

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Because the Republicans have sat silently on the bench, without honor, without integrity.

Yes, Obama can do whatever the f*ck he wants.

And America can reap the rewards of this Marxist piece of filth. Because he’s black.

I’m black. I’m American. But I don’t matter.

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 8:31 PM

must defeat Obama. Elections have consequences.

magicbeans on July 20, 2012 at 8:30 PM

While I agree with you, you should probably refrain from “we must all vote for Romney,” talk. Say what you like, but the ABR folks will come down on you like a sack of sh–taters.

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Obama should not sign it, but I’m not sure he won’t. He doesn’t care what we think, he just does what he pleases, he is an Imperial President to borrow Mark Levin’s line.

carolt2 on July 20, 2012 at 8:34 PM

The article talks about Obama’s (almost incessant, these days) unilateral action when Congress doesn’t pass what he wants, or passes something he doesn’t like.

Perhaps that’s what you guys (who say it’s in force until a vote) are talking about?

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Thanks. Yes, many ways to skin that cat. Key West Reader is right. I was not clear. Morris in an article posted several days ago, before the video commentary that I linked, made that point, and I don’t know why his more recent video suggested a Senate ratification.

petefrt on July 20, 2012 at 8:38 PM

I’m black. I’m American. But I don’t matter.

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Well, the “black thing” is an argument that a lot of us have made here. It’s not “taboo” to me, because I’m not racist–precisely because I treat black people exactly the same as any other race.

If Obama were white as “the driven snow”, I’d still despise him. Also, I’d have to agree with you: I think he hasn’t been “smacked down” for his skirting of the Consitution because he’s black AND the GOP is filled with cowards who don’t want to be called racist.

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Yeah, and as I and a few others on this thread have said, nobody’s making much of an ado about Obama saying he’s going to ignore immigration laws he doesn’t agree with. Etc., etc…

(So much willful disregard for laws, and no one has done anything. I can understand your lack of faith.)

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Faith in whut?

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 8:38 PM

KWR- it’s my understanding that a prior UN treaty was ratified that says UN treaties stand in force awaitng ratifacation. I’m not saying I’m right, but that’s my understanding.

wolly4321 on July 20, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Faith in whut?

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 8:38 PM

I was quoting the post here:
sharrukin on July 20, 2012 at 8:24 PM

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 8:40 PM

So are people going to stay home and not vote because they don’t like Mitt? Do you think Romey would sign this treaty?

magicbeans on July 20, 2012 at 8:30 PM

He signed the Assault Weapons Ban.

Has he come out against this treaty?

sharrukin on July 20, 2012 at 8:40 PM

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Open your mouth.

Eat this:

You will NEVER usurp the Constitution.

Try as you may, try as you might, ehhhhh.. FAIL.

Now get off of my gat danged back.

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 8:41 PM

petefrt on July 20, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Thanks for the clarification. :)

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 8:42 PM

I have a better idea: Leave the UN, kick them out of NYC and stop sending US dollars to them.

ButterflyDragon on July 20, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Obama should not sign it, but I’m not sure he won’t. He doesn’t care what we think, he just does what he pleases, he is an Imperial President to borrow Mark Levin’s line.

carolt2 on July 20, 2012 at 8:34 PM

He will sign it.

Narcissists like him love the idea of the world stage. What better place for accolades? Never mind how much of the UN is run by tinpot dictators.

He not only has discounted the white middle class as voters, but he presumes the lowest people in the country will bring him over the top.

Narcissists don’t hang with people who are their betters or even their equals. They can’t handle that.

Narcissists need, like a vampire starves for blood, to appeal to and capture those who are truly less and lesser than the ones those narcissists hate.

Liam on July 20, 2012 at 8:43 PM

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 8:40 PM

I’m sorry, RC … please disregard my post.

Sorry

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 8:44 PM

What a dumb question.
The ONLY significant piece of legislation that Senator Obama proposed – when he wasn’t just voting ‘Present’ – was the ‘Global Poverty Act’. Which exhorted the FedGov to heartily endorse and adopt the UN ‘Millenial Goals’ protocol, which had chief amongst its goals the complete disarmanent of civilian populations.

Disarming Americans is the ONLY thing standing between the Obama marxists and their goal end-state of the destruction of this nation as it was founded.

Our armaments coupled with our righteous anger and skill are the
ONLY thing standing between us and the deliberate murder of our society as we have known it.

So YES, Obama will sign it. The day after the election.
Dick Morris has explained it will be in effect anyway, until either the President or Senate rejects it. Reid won’t call that vote. And Obama won’t touch it before the election.

rayra on July 20, 2012 at 8:44 PM

According to Dick Morris, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties would put the new treaty into effect until such time as the Senate votes on whether to ratify it or not. I took a look at it but I’m no lawyer so I’ve got no idea if he’s right or not.

Rip Ford on July 20, 2012 at 8:46 PM

But my guess, he lets Hilary sign it, quietly hopes no one including NRA really notices in a way that creates a media stir…
Falcon46 on July 20, 2012 at 7:38 PM

The NRA pays very close attention to this. NRA News has a staff member (Ginny Simone) who is practically living at the UN now and keeps up with every single rustle of paper related to the ATT.

eeyore on July 20, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Sign it and watch the number of 3-percenters grow.

Hill60 on July 20, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Sorry

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 8:44 PM

No sweat.

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 8:38 PM
(I should also have said that a President Allan West would not be getting away with any of this. You need to be a D for the magic to work.)

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 8:50 PM

According to Dick Morris, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties would put the new treaty into effect until such time as the Senate votes on whether to ratify it or not. I took a look at it but I’m no lawyer so I’ve got no idea if he’s right or not.

Rip Ford on July 20, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Do you have a link to the article?

sharrukin on July 20, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Sorry

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Yer a big man, Key West Reader. A good man too.

petefrt on July 20, 2012 at 8:55 PM

The last time I was poor was when i was a child at 8. Back then, when you had food stamps you had to stand in line with your momma. You had to stand behind momma and make your case and then you got a book of coupons. That you showed to the cashier and then she introduced you to the entire store.

It was embarassing. Shopping in a store and taking items from the shelves, knowing that you wouldn’t and couldn’t pay for it. But we needed food. We had to eat.

There were limits on food stamps. You could not purchase butter or prepared foods; you only purchased what was needed. We hsd milk, butter, eggs, bread, cheese. Only certain cuts of meat.. hamburger, sausage, ham and cheap meat.

Fluck it.

Key West Reader on July 20, 2012 at 8:56 PM

How about this: Despite what Obama does, we dare the rest of the world to come and get our guns.

One facet of the Second is that it’s practically impossible to conquer the United States if most Citizens are armed and willing to fight.

The Second isn’t about just stopping criminals. It’s not about a fetish, either, as liberals try hinting all the time.

The Second is about making our United States unconquerable by outside invaders. And also for domestic enemies assailing out liberty, if that need arises.

Liam on July 20, 2012 at 8:57 PM

According to Dick Morris, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties would put the new treaty into effect until such time as the Senate votes on whether to ratify it or not. I took a look at it but I’m no lawyer so I’ve got no idea if he’s right or not.

Rip Ford on July 20, 2012 at 8:46 PM

See there, that’s what sucked me in too. I need to read up on it.

petefrt on July 20, 2012 at 8:58 PM

I have a better idea: Leave the UN, kick them out of NYC and stop sending US dollars to them.

ButterflyDragon on July 20, 2012 at 8:42 PM

I think this every time I hear “UN”.

RedCrow on July 20, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2