Arms-trade treaty talks collapse, supporters rip Obama

posted at 10:01 am on July 28, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

I doubt anyone reading Hot Air will mind this, but it looks like the UN won’t get a chance to dictate terms of the Second Amendment any time soon.  Yesterday evening, talks on an international arms-trade treaty collapsed when the US and a few other nations demanded an extension of time before committing to a position.  The rest of the participants suspended the entire effort — and activists pointed their fingers at Barack Obama:

The United Nations indefinitely suspended action on an international arms trade treaty Friday after the United States and several other countries asked for more time.

The decision sparked angry reactions from human rights groups often allied with the Obama administration, who believed a treaty to regulate the export of deadly weapons to rogue regimes was within reach. The UN had spent the entire month of July hammering out a deal, and Friday was the deadline for an agreement on a treaty that has met with the staunch opposition of the National Rifle Association and bipartisan concerns in the Senate.

“This was stunning cowardice by the Obama administration, which at the last minute did an about-face and scuttled progress toward a global arms treaty, just as it reached the finish line,” said Suzanne Nossel, the executive director of Amnesty International USA. “It’s a staggering abdication of leadership by the world’s largest exporter of conventional weapons to pull the plug on the talks just as they were nearing an historic breakthrough that would have required all nations to deny arms export licenses where there was an overriding risk that the weapons would be used to facilitate serious crimes against humanity.”

And Scott Stedjan, Oxfam America’s senior policy advisor, called the failure “a tremendous loss for thousands of innocent civilians around the globe who die each year from armed violence fueled by the unregulated transfer of arms.”

It wasn’t just a few activist groups that vented their frustrations, either.  A statement put forward by the UK, France, Germany, and 87 other nations complained that the draft treaty was all but ready to be adopted.  Without naming Obama, the nations pointed out their own “compromises” and had “overwhelming support of the international community” before the US demanded more time to consider it.

Frankly, Obama didn’t have much choice.  A majority of 51 Senators had already signed a letter promising to vote against ratification if the treaty covered “small arms” and/or “light weapons,” which the draft treaty does — in fact, it explicitly includes “small arms and light weapons” in Article 2, Section A1h.  Obama could have signed this draft a hundred times, and it still would have had no chance of passing in its current form.  Had the UN struck that provision, this treaty might have won the required 67 votes for approval in the Senate, and it still would have been a big step forward in arms control … at least on paper.

The problems with this treaty mirror those of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty: it sets up a UN agency that has no teeth, where enforcement ends up being a game between the West on one side and Russia and China on the other.  Meanwhile, North Korea has already gone nuclear, and Iran isn’t too far away, while Russia and China protect their client states and the West vainly tries to enforce the agreement.  This would have put the US in the same position, only this treaty would have the force of law inside the US, which would mean we would bind ourselves to its terms while the rest of the world’s kleptocrats and tyrants would ignore it.

For now, though, it’s a moot point.  Obama will end up taking the blame for this “failure,” which might seem unfair — but Obama chose to participate in this folly in 2009 after the US had previously refused, so he only has himself to blame for the impossible position in which he now finds himself.  That’s called smart power, apparently.


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

Thing is, on the left people can have different and/or contradicting opinions. Of course that’s an unfamiliar concept to the right so I do understand your confusion.
 
lester on June 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM

rogerb on July 28, 2012 at 10:03 AM

To tell you the truth, I’m a little surprised Obama wasn’t pushing over old ladies in a mad dash to get his signature on this thing.

besser tot als rot on July 28, 2012 at 10:03 AM

The Right needs to coalesce behind Obama’s distancing of this treaty and praise him for standing up to the Left and in defense of gun rights. This will surely aggravate them more.

Then, we all go out and vote Romney.

BKeyser on July 28, 2012 at 10:06 AM

…waiting for …f l e x i b i l i t y.

KOOLAID2 on July 28, 2012 at 10:06 AM

To tell you the truth, I’m a little surprised Obama wasn’t pushing over old ladies in a mad dash to get his signature on this thing.

besser tot als rot on July 28, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Election year, for BHO and some senators, etc…

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on July 28, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Did the UN understand they were dealing with Obama?

coldwarrior on July 28, 2012 at 10:08 AM

“…which would mean we would bind ourselves to its terms while the rest of the world’s kleptocrats and tyrants would ignore it.”

And that’s the fatal flaw in all gun control machinations.

Choom up, Barry. You’ve only got 4 more months to endure.

locomotivebreath1901 on July 28, 2012 at 10:10 AM

We should push this failure, too. Not that we agree, but HIS supporters liked this treaty and his being blamed by our allies for muffing it is something that should hurt him with his side.

Warner Todd Huston on July 28, 2012 at 10:10 AM

“It’s a staggering abdication of leadership by the world’s largest exporter of conventional weapons to pull the plug on the talks just as they were nearing an historic breakthrough…”

That’s right. He shouldn’t have waited till the last minute. He should have shot that one down a long time ago.

backwoods conservative on July 28, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Are the Republicans going to be able to become the majority in the Senate in 2012? I don’t like having to depend upon the Democrats for anything in that chamber.

gracie on July 28, 2012 at 10:12 AM

The Right needs to coalesce behind Obama’s distancing of this treaty and praise him for standing up to the Left and in defense of gun rights. This will surely aggravate them more.

Then, we all go out and vote Romney.

BKeyser on July 28, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Very nice.

bluegill on July 28, 2012 at 10:13 AM

If Amnesty International is pissed then that is a very good thing. That AI woman on TV was bleating on about how there are 600 billion guns in America (what is it with lefties and math?) and that the guns kill at least one person a minute. She went Wide Open Moonbat from these eye opening facts onwards.

Then again, I did agree with her that you should not be able to buy AC-130s at Sams Club.

CorporatePiggy on July 28, 2012 at 10:15 AM

~does a happy dance, and I can’t dance~

You’ll get American guns when some UN buttnut can climb over the bodies of other UN buttnuts to pry them from our cold dead fingers.

Liam on July 28, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Barack Obama thinks he can win and the anti second amendment water got too hot.

Speakup on July 28, 2012 at 10:15 AM

you can have my guns when you pry them out with your cold dead hands

Slade73 on July 28, 2012 at 10:16 AM

second look at obama? nah but I will give him an small clap of praise here. Sure he did it because his internal polls after the CO shooting showed him how bad gun control is of an issue heading into Nov but I don’t care. the treaty is dead. Freedom wins a round.

unseen on July 28, 2012 at 10:17 AM

If bammy signed the treaty he would never had been reelected, now we wait until November 6 to find out if he gets the chance to sign it. He probably won’t get the chance as a lame (dog eating) duck……..

angrymike on July 28, 2012 at 10:18 AM

What a shame.

BigGator5 on July 28, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Then again, I did agree with her that you should not be able to buy AC-130s at Sams Club.

CorporatePiggy on July 28, 2012 at 10:15 AM

I think you should be able to buy an M1-A1 at walmart if you want.

unseen on July 28, 2012 at 10:19 AM

It wasn’t just a few activist groups that vented their frustrations, either. A statement put forward by the UK, France, Germany, and 87 other nations complained that the draft treaty was all but ready to be adopted. Without naming Obama, the nations pointed out their own “compromises” and had “overwhelming support of the international community” before the US demanded more time to consider it.

Nobody likes him, Everybody hates him
He should go eat worms!

Naturally Curly on July 28, 2012 at 10:19 AM

“This was stunning cowardice by the Obama administration, which at the last minute did an about-face and scuttled progress…
“a tremendous loss for thousands of innocent civilians around the globe who die each year from armed violence fueled by the unregulated transfer of arms.”

 

Typical HA commenter. Wish bad on the American economy and our best ally for political gain.
 
Uppereastside on July 26, 2012 at 9:23 PM

rogerb on July 28, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Think I’ll wander down to the range this afternoon and drill a few dozen 9mm sized holes to celebrate this victory.

BlueStateExpat on July 28, 2012 at 10:26 AM

The Right needs to coalesce behind Obama’s distancing of this treaty and praise him for standing up to the Left and in defense of gun rights. This will surely aggravate them more.

Then, we all go out and vote Romney.

BKeyser on July 28, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Brilliant!

Naturally Curly on July 28, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Not to worry, after the election he’ll do gun control by EO.

Bitter clingers of the world, unite!

petefrt on July 28, 2012 at 10:30 AM

A majority of 51 Senators had already signed a letter promising to vote against ratification if the treaty covered “small arms” and/or “light weapons,”

Props to the Dems and RINOs that signed on and stood up to Obama’s rejection of the 2nd Amendment.

visions on July 28, 2012 at 10:31 AM

To tell you the truth, I’m a little surprised Obama wasn’t pushing over old ladies in a mad dash to get his signature on this thing.

besser tot als rot on July 28, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Obama will be more flexible after he wins the election.
You know, like a snake is flexible.

gordo on July 28, 2012 at 10:31 AM

I bet Obama is livid over this. How dare the UN fail him this way?

Liam on July 28, 2012 at 10:31 AM

I love it how we won the day and President Obama gets the blame.

It’s a rare day when everything goes your way. Enjoy it everyone!

BigGator5 on July 28, 2012 at 10:31 AM

For now, though, it’s a moot point. Obama will end up taking the blame for this “failure,” which might seem unfair — but Obama chose to participate in this folly in 2009 after the US had previously refused, so he only has himself to blame for the impossible position in which he now finds himself. That’s called smart power, apparently.

you could use this line in almost every endeavor this administration persued.

smitty41 on July 28, 2012 at 10:32 AM

O’bama will just Blame this on Bush.

Del Dolemonte on July 28, 2012 at 10:34 AM

For now, though, it’s a moot point. Obama will end up taking the blame for this “failure,” which might seem unfair — but Obama chose to participate in this folly in 2009 after the US had previously refused, so he only has himself to blame for the impossible position in which he now finds himself. That’s called smart power, apparently.

you could use this line in almost every endeavor this administration persued.

smitty41 on July 28, 2012 at 10:32 AM

“Present.”

visions on July 28, 2012 at 10:35 AM

The exception that proves the rule: Democrats love to do whatever they can to weaken America, and the only thing that will prevent them from doing it is the fear of not getting re-elected, and thus losing the opportunity to do more of it later.

drunyan8315 on July 28, 2012 at 10:36 AM

O’bama will just Blame this on Bush.

Del Dolemonte on July 28, 2012 at 10:34 AM

If that sticks, I’ll be sending a ‘thank you’ card to Bush.

Liam on July 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Thing is, on the left people can have different and/or contradicting opinions. Of course that’s an unfamiliar concept to the right so I do understand your confusion.

lester on June 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM
rogerb on July 28, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Wow, just stunning…

Valkyriepundit on July 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM

By this time most presidents are looking much older. I don’t think he takes any of this seriously enough to worry and get a little gray hair and weathered.

hawkdriver on July 28, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Well, if Turdhead wasn’t running for re-election, you better believe that he would be all about getting getting this passed. IF Turdhead is gifted with a second term, HE WILL find a way to get this plan implemented.

Pork-Chop on July 28, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Looks like we dodged a bullet.

/rimshot

Mord on July 28, 2012 at 10:44 AM

The politician’s Prime Directive is to stay in power.
Nothing else matters.

Kenosha Kid on July 28, 2012 at 10:44 AM

The UN (and Obama) aren’t worried about the international arms trade. Too many countries are making money from selling weapons.

I think what really annoys them is that, “It’s impossible to invade/take over the United States. There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

Liam on July 28, 2012 at 10:48 AM

who the hell said Xmas doesn’t come in July?

Renee on July 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM

The Right needs to coalesce behind Obama’s distancing of this treaty and praise him for standing up to the Left and in defense of gun rights. This will surely aggravate them more.

Then, we all go out and vote Romney.

BKeyser on July 28, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Winner!

MaxSplinters on July 28, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Obama will end up taking the blame for this “failure,”

Don’t bet on it. The boy king never takes the blame for anything even resembling “failure.”

Somehow, someway, he’ll end up laying this at the feet of those mean ol’ Republicans in Congress who never let him do what he wants to do for the good of the country.

Flora Duh on July 28, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Don’t bet on it. The boy king never takes the blame for anything even resembling “failure.”

Somehow, someway, he’ll end up laying this at the feet of those mean ol’ Republicans in Congress who never let him do what he wants to do for the good of the country.

Flora Duh on July 28, 2012 at 10:54 AM

And the state of Colorado will be mentioned many times. obambi and his folks really are transparent at times.

VegasRick on July 28, 2012 at 10:58 AM

LMFAO – When it rains on the bumbling marxist….it friggin’ pours!

Tim_CA on July 28, 2012 at 11:01 AM

By this time most presidents are looking much older. I don’t think he takes any of this seriously enough to worry and get a little gray hair and weathered.

hawkdriver on July 28, 2012 at 10:41 AM

..then he must be seriously worried about his golf score, Hawk.

The War Planner on July 28, 2012 at 11:04 AM

So if the US had ratified this treaty in the past, would Barry have been prosecuted for “Fast and Furious”?

As for the US delaying, it figures. Going into the election, the last thing Barry needs is another failure. He knows he doesn’t have the Senate votes, and he certainly doesn’t want the pubic seeing what’s in the treaty.

GarandFan on July 28, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Think I’ll wander down to the range this afternoon and drill a few dozen 9mm sized holes to celebrate this victory.

BlueStateExpat on July 28, 2012 at 10:26 AM

..try .30-06.

*kapow!* *kapow!* *kapow!* *kapow!* *kapow!* *kapow!* *kapow!* *kapow!*

*kli-i-i-i–n-n-g!*

The War Planner on July 28, 2012 at 11:08 AM

This is a no-lose/no-lose for Baraka. He’s got cover bcuz he knows it won’t get past the Senate and he’s using it as a silent campaign strategy to maybe steal a few votes from indies or RINOS who don’t support the treaty.

stukinIL4now on July 28, 2012 at 11:11 AM

after the United States and several other countries asked for more time.

Like some time after November 6th?

jnelchef on July 28, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Obama has done what he’s always done: Nothing.

He didn’t even have a hand in ObamaCare. He left all of that to Pelosi and Reid.

The only thing the man has displayed any type of leadership towards was his frantic flight to make a pitch for Chicago to host the Olympics. That’s it. That’s the ONLY thing he has displayed leadership on. And that instance was poor leadership.

ButterflyDragon on July 28, 2012 at 11:14 AM

“There you go again.”

—————————–You Know Who

==========================================================================

Any move toward giving the U.N. or any other outside entity ANY say-so about United States policy is not going to fly for any good American.

This includes The Hague, The International Court of Bullsh!t, and the rest of the multi-culti entities that would bring us to our knees given the chance.

NO.

hillbillyjim on July 28, 2012 at 11:15 AM

talks on an international arms-trade treaty collapsed when the US and a few other nations demanded an extension of time before committing to a position

Obama: After my election, I have more flexibility.

timberline on July 28, 2012 at 11:15 AM

The Right needs to coalesce behind Obama’s distancing of this treaty and praise him for standing up to the Left and in defense of gun rights. This will surely aggravate them more.

Then, we all go out and vote Romney.

BKeyser on July 28, 2012 at 10:06 AM

While it’s a bad treaty anyway, a treaty cannot supercede the Constition. He gets no credit as the SC has ruled on this several times.

whbates on July 28, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Did Susan Rice cry again?

Seriously, other than 1.5% GDP in the second quarter, it’s a bit of a slow news weekend. Can we expect the Sunday shows to highlight these problems for Obama, or will they talk non-stop about Romney in Great Britain?

BuckeyeSam on July 28, 2012 at 11:18 AM

By this time most presidents are looking much older. I don’t think he takes any of this seriously enough to worry and get a little gray hair and weathered.

hawkdriver on July 28, 2012 at 10:41 AM

He’s farmed it all out to the likes of Shrillary, that vile Powers woman, and other Progressive one-world, it-takes-a-village, anti-U.S., anti-Israel, pro-Palithugs types.

All he has done is suggest the weakening of the one thing that has held the peace for decades — our superior nuclear arsenal and delivery systems. Smart power indeed.

hillbillyjim on July 28, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Hypothetically, if the Senate ratified such a treaty and the President signed it, wouldn’t it *still* be unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable (assuming the supreme court sticks to the constitution)? I’m no constitutional scholar, but it seems to me a treaty can’t overrule the constitution. Otherwise, it’s a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.

Mohonri on July 28, 2012 at 11:20 AM

While it’s a bad treaty anyway, a treaty cannot supercede the Constition. He gets no credit as the SC has ruled on this several times.

whbates on July 28, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Actually, it can. Under the Constitution, any treaty ratified becomes supreme law of the land.

I’m already in favor of an Article Five Convention to amend the Constitution. And that provision badly needs to be modified.

Liam on July 28, 2012 at 11:21 AM

the US and a few other nations demanded an extension of time before committing to a position

Wait, let me guess, he wanted to wait until after the election, right?

“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense international arms trade treaty , this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

magicbeans on July 28, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Hypothetically, if the Senate ratified such a treaty and the President signed it, wouldn’t it *still* be unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable (assuming the supreme court sticks to the constitution)? I’m no constitutional scholar, but it seems to me a treaty can’t overrule the constitution. Otherwise, it’s a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.

Mohonri on July 28, 2012 at 11:20 AM

A treaty cannot override the Constitution.

ButterflyDragon on July 28, 2012 at 11:25 AM

The Right needs to coalesce behind Obama’s distancing of this treaty and praise him for standing up to the Left and in defense of gun rights. This will surely aggravate them more.

Then, we all go out and vote Romney.

BKeyser on July 28, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Winner!

MaxSplinters on July 28, 2012 at 10:54 AM
+1

smitty41 on July 28, 2012 at 11:26 AM

The decision sparked angry reactions from human rights groups often allied with the Obama administration, who believed a treaty to regulate the export of deadly weapons to rogue regimes was within reach.

Obama is not going to do anything that would imperil the Assad regime’s ability to mop up the opposition.

Mr. Arkadin on July 28, 2012 at 11:27 AM

A treaty cannot override the Constitution.

ButterflyDragon on July 28, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Not directly. But the accords of a ratified treaty become part of Federal law.

Liam on July 28, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Apparently these human rights groups have never heard of Obama’s Operation Fast and Furious.

Karmi on July 28, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Obama sports egg

timberline on July 28, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Not directly. But the accords of a ratified treaty become part of Federal law.

Liam on July 28, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Federal law cannot trump the Constitution.

timberline on July 28, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Happy news…

“Hey U.N.: no soup for you!”

Khun Joe on July 28, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Federal law cannot trump the Constitution.

timberline on July 28, 2012 at 11:33 AM

It does all the time. The upholding of O-care is a case in point.

I’m not debating the merits of your argument, because I agree with your premise. Reality is another thing.

If Obama got chance to sign that UN treaty, and if the Senate ratified it, there is no way I’ll believe he and the other Dems wouldn’t rush to come after our guns. I suspect if things went their way in the UN, they’d wait till after the election. A lame-duck president and Senate would be out to enforce the treaty in full like stink on sh!t.

Liam on July 28, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Remember this stunning piece of ‘leadership’ is handed to you by the guy who ran wanting to be President of the World… not just the US. A ‘new era’ of diplomacy and reset overcharge buttons, his wanting change more of the same in Iran and helping the Green Movement backing the mullahs. Casting credit blame to Japan, the EU, the UK and Israel as our allies patsies. Reinforcing our ties disdain with Poland and the Czech Republic by standing up to throwing them to the wolves with Russia on missile defense.

See all the glory of Emperor Marshmallow the Zeroeth!

Speaker of high words and brown-noser to the worst regimes the world has seen in decades. The all high, all knowing, gracious fool with a ‘KICK ME, PLEASE’ sign permanently stapled to his behind. A disappointment to friends, an enrager of political adversaries and an appeaser of the tyrannical, there is no King or Emperor he will not bow down to so as to kiss a ring or show submission.

No if you don’t think that a treaty can be done you don’t entice others on to thinking it can be… and then backout without first having set your problems before those you negotiate with. But, of course, that means showing your hand to the public: can’t do that when you are all high and mighty on yonder Unicorn! Yes I am glad that this treaty is in the dead letter category… and it should never, ever have even been contemplated as no one trusts any international body to oversee something that is so close to the survival of Nations that it is their sovereign right to engage in as they please without some one else kibbitzing from a treaty organization. The Chemical Weapons treaty did not stop Asad from getting same, and that family has done its best to circumvent both bio and nuclear arms accords, as well, and it is only in the absolute poverty of Syria that such a body could only limit a few items going to Syria while it gulled other countries out of dual use equipment right under the noses of self-same body overseeing it… and Syria signed those latter treaties saying it wouldn’t skirt them.

Barack Obama doesn’t have a foreign policy: he has a set of feelings that shift day by day trying to figure out who to appease next: his radical ‘base’, the Mullahs, Putin, Castro, NoKo… all of which, as we have seen through history,does not get you peace with tyrants, but war with them. Transnational Progressivism doesn’t work… nor does simple Transnationalism or Globalism… we have Nations for a reason and it is to represent us in our diversity. Wanting more overhead means you don’t want diversity but obedience to a ruling elite… you want an Empire as only that can do that homogenizing of which is so wanted by those wanting a UN to have such power. Did politics drive Obama on this? Without a doubt. Did his incompetence and lack of being able to say what it is that he wants to do cause this to happen for years? You betchya! Did he lack the will to say, early on, that ‘this is not a good way to go’ or the intelligence to realize how the world actually works… or BOTH?

De adults, dey is in charge!

ajacksonian on July 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM

De adults, dey is in charge!

ajacksonian on July 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM

No, no–yo gramma be bad. It’s not, “De adults, dey is in charge!”

It be, “De adults, dey is BE in charge!”

Liam on July 28, 2012 at 11:45 AM

ajacksonian on July 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Well done. Thank you.

hillbillyjim on July 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Why risk losing the election and the larger Agenda when will just pass this and worse by fiat after November?

The Supreme Court? Heck, he’s already said he’ll go around another branch of government with no problem. Ask those fast and furious folks if he cares about laws.

Don L on July 28, 2012 at 11:52 AM

And Scott Stedjan, Oxfam America’s senior policy advisor, called the failure “a tremendous loss for thousands of innocent civilians around the globe who die each year from armed violence fueled by the unregulated transfer of arms.”

“The unregulated transfer of arms”. And see if you can guess who should do the regulating? Sounds a bit like Dean Wormer.

bofh on July 28, 2012 at 11:53 AM

De adults, dey is in charge!

ajacksonian on July 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM

No, no–yo gramma be bad. It’s not, “De adults, dey is in charge!”

It be, “De adults, dey is BE in charge!”

Liam on July 28, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Come on folks -Joe Biden told us he talks clean….

Don L on July 28, 2012 at 11:53 AM

but Obama chose to participate in this folly in 2009 after the US had previously refused, so he only has himself to blame for the impossible position in which he now finds himself.

Bingo. He could have nipped this s**t in the bud earlier, but I’m sure he was figuring that F&F was going to turn out far more favorably.

MadisonConservative on July 28, 2012 at 11:56 AM

The article never mentioned the “other” countries wanting more time. Any idea who they are?

marinetbryant on July 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM

One must wonder what our U.N. Ambassador would have said and done after November the 6th.

Not really.

Jugears exposed his level of integrity when he told Putin to wait ’til after the elections and he could be more “flexible”, meaning more Socialist/Marxist, screw America, bend-over and bow policies.

hillbillyjim on July 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Thing is, on the left people can have different and/or contradicting opinions. Of course that’s an unfamiliar concept to the right so I do understand your confusion.

lester on June 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM

rogerb on July 28, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Poor lester.

Too stupid to keep his liberal indoctrination from tripping over itself.

Lanceman on July 28, 2012 at 12:04 PM

It wasn’t just a few activist groups that vented their frustrations, either. A statement put forward by the UK, France, Germany, and 87 other nations complained that the draft treaty was all but ready to be adopted. Without naming Obama, the nations pointed out their own “compromises” and had “overwhelming support of the international community” before the US demanded more time to consider it.

A minor point, but worth making anyway:

Are these countries somehow required to allow the sale or import of small arms from the US into their own country?

Hey France….if you don’t want the weapons from the US, ban them. Over there. Not here.

BobMbx on July 28, 2012 at 12:04 PM

The Constitution AND Treaties are the supreme law of the land….so yes, If the Treaty were to come into force it would be Co-equal with the US Constitution.

The US is the largest exporter of “conventional arms:
1) But LEGALLY that’s all that can be exported, after all it’s not legal to export Weapons of Mass Destruction; and
2) In the case of the US that means F-15′s, F-16′s, F-35′s, Main Battle Tanks, NOT Small Arms or light weapons…

I’m not sure who exports the most of those, Russia, PRC, any number of small nations…Ak-47′s, RPK’s, and RPG’s don’t cost much, so they don’t add too much to the bottom-line of the International Arms Trade, as compared to multi-billion dollar deals for Ah-64′s or M-1′s.

JFKY on July 28, 2012 at 12:07 PM

I think Fast And Furious was not just meant to stir support for gun control in the US; its actual purpose was to provide cover and support for a UN treaty that could accomplish similar goals but without any domestic legislative action that could be used against specific legislators or the President.

Or something…

nhsteve on July 28, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Phuck those imbeciles trying to destroy America and America’s 2nd amendment And phuck the UN, it no longer service any useful purpose it has become nothing more than a Kabuki Theater for Marxist’s and bat$hit insane raving third world lunatics.

Happy Birthday Thad.

SWalker on July 28, 2012 at 12:31 PM

That’s called smart power, apparently.

Obama can fail with the best of them…nobody holds a candle to his awesome fail power.

AUINSC on July 28, 2012 at 12:32 PM

I’ll go with, BKeyser on July 28, 2012 at 10:06 AM and ajacksonian on July 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM takes on this one. Plus it saves me from having to send a thank you note to anyone.

Bmore on July 28, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Article VI – Debts, Supremacy, Oaths//
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 (emph added); and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.//

JFKY on July 28, 2012 at 12:34 PM

So “the United States and several other countries” asked for more time. How much more time? Maybe 3 1/2 months?

tj4osu on July 28, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Are the Republicans going to be able to become the majority in the Senate in 2012? I don’t like having to depend upon the Democrats for anything in that chamber.

gracie on July 28, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Not if the darnfools keep endorsing democrats in their races. WTH are they thinking? Cornyn and that fool in Hawaii should be run off with pitchforks.

AZfederalist on July 28, 2012 at 12:50 PM

“By this time most presidents are looking much older. I don’t think he takes any of this seriously enough to worry and get a little gray hair and weathered.”

hawkdriver on July 28, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Hillary has aged enough for both of them.

creeper on July 28, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Obama will end up taking the blame for this “failure,”

the dude will place it on someone else…he NEVERS accepts the blame…

cmsinaz on July 28, 2012 at 12:54 PM

The Right needs to coalesce behind Obama’s distancing of this treaty and praise him for standing up to the Left and in defense of gun rights. This will surely aggravate them more.

Then, we all go out and vote Romney.

BKeyser on July 28, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Hah! That’s pretty fun to do. I was lavishly praising Obama’s signing of the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, as well as authorizing $70 million in military assistance to a serious Kool-aid drinker yesterday. He was boiling with rage by the time I got through with him. Hard-core lefties like him hate the Jews so much, it was just delicious to f*ck with him like that.

Harbingeing on July 28, 2012 at 12:56 PM

watch obamao do some kind of executive fiat or something. He is a sniveling, communist, dictator, and a disgrace to our country. Thanks, you idiot liberals.

ultracon on July 28, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Hillary has aged enough for both of them.

creeper on July 28, 2012 at 12:51 PM

I’ve often wondered what the liquor bill on her official State Dept. jet must be. She certainly appears to have taken full advantage of that little perk.

Harbingeing on July 28, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Treaties can’t trump the Constitution but corrupt politicians can

For decades, apostles of one world government have endeavored to convince the American people that treaties, rather than the Constitution, embody the supreme law of the land. In 1952, Secretary of State and Council on Foreign Relations member John Foster Dulles told the American Bar Association that “Treaty law can override the Constitution.” “Treaties for example…can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.” (1)

But the Supreme Court has more than once decided against the propaganda of the new world order crowd. In the landmark case Reid v Covert, the Court ruled”…no 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.” In short, as “[the Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty,” the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land and treaties may neither supplant nor amend it. (2)

However, treaty articles have been willfully applied in the U.S. regardless of constitutional requirements or Supreme Court decisions. A century ago, Theodore Roosevelt signed and implemented the terms of a treaty “..for two years before the Senate acted.” He later stated that he “…would have continued it until the end of [his] term, if necessary, without any action by Congress.” Roosevelt claimed, “the Constitution did not explicitly give me power to bring about the necessary agreement with Santo Domingo. But the Constitution did not forbid my doing what I did.”

petefrt on July 28, 2012 at 1:00 PM

More time = after November 6.

For the love of dog, UN, Barry already announced that after the election he’ll have more flexibility. What more do you want him to do?

Dark Star on July 28, 2012 at 1:00 PM

If allowed Hillary would sign it in a heartbeat. This being an election year, and after much polling, I suspect he will put it off for after the election during his lame duck session. That will be just one of his attempts to force his unwanted ideology on the American people after Nov and before Jan. we must stop this amateur during that time.

jake49 on July 28, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Obama will end up taking the blame for this “failure,”
the dude will place it on someone else…he NEVERS accepts the blame…

cmsinaz on July 28, 2012 at 12:54 PM

No this time I think he will keep his mouth shut about it while his followers blame it on violent Tea Party Revolutionaries, rotted-tooth rednecks clinging to their God and their guns because they have nothing else in their pitiful lives and in general on damnable Republicans who stir up riff raff into opposing government by their betters.

How do I know this? Because I hear constantly that sort of bilge from fellow New Yorkers who assure me that they are vastly my superior in intellect, education, true morality and civility. And how do they know this? Because the New York Times, NPR and the MSM told them so.

KW64 on July 28, 2012 at 1:06 PM

The UN is a ridiculous organization from start to finish for the very reason that it has no authority to enforce anything. These treaties, etc. are only as valid as the good will of the participants, and for as long as that good will lasts, as Ed pointed out so effectively. The UN is a living example, a laboratory, of virtually every human failing.

Frankly speaking, the UN should never be granted the authority to enforce anything. There are far too many thugs, dictators, narcissists, and egomaniacs sitting in its membership to ever be trusted with any sort of global authority. The UN was, and still is, the product of utopian thinking. The premise is fatally flawed…IF humans were perfect, IF the world would agree to disarm, to share everything, to limit population growth voluntarily, to educate effectively and efficiently, to move unilaterally to lift mankind up, the world would become a utopia…so the thinking goes. In reality, in practice, human nature being what it is, this is a fantasy.

Obama was wrong to try to commit this nation to following the UN. This nation is preeminent in the world. This nation must lead and must remain independent. We cannot be subject to the will of the UN, nor can we be perceived by the rest of the world as an arm, or tool, of the UN, nor can we ever give the appearance that we’ve ceded that position of preeminence. To even lend ourselves to such and appearance would destabilize the world and set its many disparate players at one another’s throats in an epic power struggle for that position of preeminence. The resultant carnage would be unconscionable.

thatsafactjack on July 28, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Reid v Covert (1957) held that the Constitution supersedes international treaties. The Senate can ratify but the Supeme Court can toss it if it violates constitutional rights.

“this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty”. From the decision.

amerpundit on July 28, 2012 at 1:17 PM

KW64 on July 28, 2012 at 1:06 PM

you got me there…hang in there in NYC…

cmsinaz on July 28, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 2