John Kerry pretty pumped about signing off on UN arms trade treaty; White House oddly fine with waiting it out

posted at 8:01 pm on June 3, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

The Senate has already come out swinging — on a bipartisan basis, no less — with a symbolic 53-46 vote against the United States’ adoption of the United Nations’ newly finalized Arms Trade Treaty, an international agreement that its globalist advocates claim will be helpful in regulating the conventional arms trade. The Obama administration went pretty mum about the ongoing issue in the run-up to the presidential election, but has since declared their full and enthusiastic support for the project that a group of 130 lawmakers last week called a “deeply flawed” document that “suffers from vagueness” and which they recommend the  administration should abstain from signing.

Still, Secretary of State John Kerry is pretty darn excited about the prospect of the United States hopping on board with the United Nations’ treaty:

Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the Obama administration would sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, despite bipartisan resistance in Congress from members concerned it could lead to new gun control measures in the U.S.

Kerry, releasing a written statement as the U.N. treaty opened for signature Monday, said the U.S. “welcomes” the next phase for the treaty, which the U.N. General Assembly approved on April 2.

“We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily,” he said. Kerry called the treaty “an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights.”

And yet, it sounds like the White House might suddenly be feeling sheepish about the issue all over again. They’re once more pulling out the stall tactics, waiting to sign a bill that President Obama fundamentally supports but most of the Senate fundamentally opposes until both Congress and much of the country are on vacation in August (a.k.a. the time when Congress and the media will raise the least amount of collective fuss over the whole thing) — except that the president could have signed it today if he had really wanted to.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the president aims to sign the pact “before the end of August.” Obama could have signed the treaty as early as Monday. …

That time frame appears to validate the concerns of treaty advocates who had worried the administration would wait until the cover of darkness to sign a treaty opposed by a majority of senators. …

The treaty covers small arms and calls for the creation of an end-user registry for exports. It is that registry that has drawn the opposition of the NRA and a majority of the Senate. …

Carney made it clear Monday that Obama intends to sign it eventually, arguing that technical reasons explain the delay.

“We believe it’s in the interest of the United States,” he said. “While we look forward to signing the treaty, there are remaining translation issues that need to be resolved.”

“Remaining translation issues”? Mm hmm, yes, I’m sure that’s it.

Anyhow, if/when President Obama finally signs the treaty, the teeth of enforcement only come with Senate ratification of a two-thirds majority — which, as things stand now, is not going to happen.


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

Impeach.

ThePrez on June 3, 2013 at 8:07 PM

White House spokesman Jay Carney said….

Couldn’t read anymore from a paid liar..

Electrongod on June 3, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Not to worry, Dear Liar will “deem” it to have passed the Senate.

rbj on June 3, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Still, Secretary of State John Kerry is pretty darn excited about the prospect of the United States hopping on board with the United Nations’ treaty:

‘Cuz, like, um, it is doing such a great job of preventing countries from arming various factions in the new Spanish Civil War: Syria.

That time frame appears to validate the concerns of treaty advocates who had worried the administration would wait until the cover of darkness to sign a treaty opposed by a majority of senators. …

The treaty covers small arms and calls for the creation of an end-user registry for exports. It is that registry that has drawn the opposition of the NRA and a majority of the Senate. …

A treaty, even on ratified by the Senate, DOES NOT TRUMP THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. See: Reid v Covert, as but one example.

Resist We Much on June 3, 2013 at 8:10 PM

kerry should live in france and obumbles in kenya
having peeps like this in top positions is an insult
to all those who gave their futures so we could be free.

losarkos on June 3, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Kerry called the treaty “an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights.”

Ambassador Stevens and border agent Brian Terry unavailable for comment.

nobar on June 3, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Barry can sign it as many times as he likes; it’s already DOA in the Senate.

Another “success” story for “Smart Diplomacy”!

GarandFan on June 3, 2013 at 8:14 PM

an international agreement that its globalist advocates claim will be helpful in regulating the conventional arms trade.

Arms trade as in FastnFurious mehican edicion
or
as in FasnFurious Benghazi edition ?

burrata on June 3, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Let’s hope that Cadaver Reid decides to actually bring it up for a vote.

ProfShadow on June 3, 2013 at 8:16 PM

They have cover in the Senate to bitch and moan and sound all pro 2nd on the left.

If barky signs it, and dingy harry doesn’t allow a vote, it goes in to effect. It ‘s a treaty. It requires a dissent vote, no?

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 8:17 PM

More betrayal of this country by this administration..absolutely no surprise there

sadsushi on June 3, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Ried won’t bring it to a vote. It requires a dissent vote to stop it, or it becomes in force.

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 8:20 PM

No fewer than five brewing scandals (or more depending on how you do the math). For the rat-eared coward to sign off on a treaty that will fundamentally undermine the principles of the Second Amendment probably isn’t the swiftest of moves right now. Even for a stupid lazy bastard like Barak Hussein Obama.

Happy Nomad on June 3, 2013 at 8:21 PM

This is nothing but a play to the liberal, anti-gun, liberal base.

ladyingray on June 3, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Any senator that votes to ratify – can kiss his or her career bye-bye.

Hill60 on June 3, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Happy Nomad on June 3, 2013 at 8:21 PM

this is the guy who thinks holder is a man of integrity now

/

cmsinaz on June 3, 2013 at 8:23 PM

Kerry called the treaty “an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights.”

So Mr Horse face, why don’t you ask the horse’s @$$ who runs guns for drug cartels and jihadies to stop . Why do we need a UN dictat for that ?

burrata on June 3, 2013 at 8:23 PM

Garand,, it doesn’t need to be voted up. That’s not how treaties work.

No dissent vote means it becomes in force.

Ried won’t bring it up, evah…

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 8:23 PM

But, OF COURSE Kerry is enthused about signing this treaty…

The treaty covers small arms and calls for the creation of an end-user registry for exports. It is that registry that has drawn the opposition of the NRA and a majority of the Senate. …

A treaty, even on ratified by the Senate, DOES NOT TRUMP THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. See: Reid v Covert, as but one example.

Resist We Much on June 3, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Lourdes on June 3, 2013 at 8:26 PM

kerry should live in france and obumbles in kenya
having peeps like this in top positions is an insult
to all those who gave their futures so we could be free.

losarkos on June 3, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Well, Kerry sold his chateau to George Clooney when he was running for President. He needed all his mansions including the English Manor that was imported and re-assembled to be on American soil.

The lazy rat-eared coward doesn’t have a home in Kenya but he might be able to bunk in the mansion his half-brother built with the money from the “charity” in their father’s name that was fast-tracked and illegally backdated by the IRS’s Lois Lerner in less than thirty days.

Happy Nomad on June 3, 2013 at 8:26 PM

…Kerrys face…. is going to break

KOOLAID2 on June 3, 2013 at 8:26 PM

This is nothing but a play to the liberal, anti-gun, liberal base.

ladyingray on June 3, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Any senator that votes to ratify – can kiss his or her career bye-bye.

Hill60 on June 3, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Yes, to what both of you wrote.

Lourdes on June 3, 2013 at 8:27 PM

This is nothing but a play to the liberal, anti-gun, liberal base.

ladyingray on June 3, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Nothing quite like the rabid right and its delusions of victimization and grand conpiracy at the hands of an international treaty.

When you decide to line up on the side of Iran, Syria and North Korea to block a treaty, it’s obvious that the delusions have reached new, dizzying heights.

Perhaps a righty should be designated to coordinate strategy with the Iranians and North Koreans on this one?

bayam on June 3, 2013 at 8:29 PM

this is the guy who thinks holder is a man of integrity now

/

cmsinaz on June 3, 2013 at 8:23 PM

I don’t think you fully get the Dem’s view of integrity. It is attached to loyalty and essentially means giving cover to the rat-eared capo.

Happy Nomad on June 3, 2013 at 8:29 PM

It doesn’t need to be ratified. Only not voted on at all. Everty dem can squeal about how much they hate it,, BECAUSE IT WILL NEVER HIT THE FLOOR.

And thus,, it’s in force.

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 8:29 PM

an international agreement that its globalist advocates claim will be helpful in regulating the conventional arms trade.

Arms trade as in FastnFurious mehican edicion
or
as in FasnFurious Benghazi edition ?

burrata on June 3, 2013 at 8:14 PM

“International agreement” sounds suspiciously like yet another crap-call paid for by George Soros, whose evil hands and plans are invested in just about every scheme globally to thwart and ruin the US Constitution, mostly our economic method as it is now or barely remains.

Won’t enough members of Congress tell this creep and his “international agreements” to get lost? Anyone?

Lourdes on June 3, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Trollcott !!!!

burrata on June 3, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Destabilization is the Soros process. Guns and ammunition in the hands of irrational screaming people in desperate areas of the world while making guns and ammunition in stable areas of the world as hard to obtain and keep as possible is what the process is at the nuts-n-bolts level.

Lourdes on June 3, 2013 at 8:32 PM

A treaty, even on ratified by the Senate, DOES NOT TRUMP THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. See: Reid v Covert, as but one example.

Resist We Much on June 3, 2013 at 8:10 PM

But it goes a long way to the rat-eared coward’s views that we should surrender our rights to Turtle Bay.

Happy Nomad on June 3, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Notice that Obama has never made or announced intention to make any RETRACTION speech “before the UN” to correct that indecent falsehood he repeatedly proclaimed about that “awful video” to blame for “the violence” at Benghazi.

Not a peep so much as trying to bray before the world at the UN that he was, uh, perhaps, maybe, could be, uhh, well, mistaken, misinformed, was Hillary’s fault, uhhh…

Lourdes on June 3, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Ried won’t bring it to a vote. It requires a dissent vote to stop it, or it becomes in force.

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 8:20 PM

In the US, a treaty requires ratification before it has force of law. Ratification requires 67 votes in the Senate.

A couple of examples:

Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points included the establishment of a League of Nations. The League was established by Part I of the Treaty of Versailles, which was NEVER ratified by the Senate and had no force of law in the United States. In fact, despite the concept of a League of Nations having originated in the United States, the US never joined.

The Kyoto Treaty was never ratified by the Senate and had no force of law in the US.

Also, if a Treaty even one that is ratified by the Senate requires funding to implement or maintained, the House, which ordinarily plays no role in Treaties, can block its implementation. No body can force the House of Representatives to provide funds for the implementation or enforcement of a Treaty, including the UN or other body.

Resist We Much on June 3, 2013 at 8:38 PM

If the treaty is not available in English, how does the Administration know how great it is?

IndieDogg on June 3, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Not a peep so much as trying to bray before the world at the UN that he was, uh, perhaps, maybe, could be, uhh, well, mistaken, misinformed, was Hillary’s fault, uhhh…

Lourdes on June 3, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Was that the same bray in which Hussein took out a hit on us if someone slandered his prophet ?

burrata on June 3, 2013 at 8:39 PM

If the treaty is not available in English, how does the Administration know how great it is?

IndieDogg on June 3, 2013 at 8:39 PM

because it is in Austrian ?

burrata on June 3, 2013 at 8:40 PM

It doesn’t need to be ratified. Only not voted on at all. Everty dem can squeal about how much they hate it,, BECAUSE IT WILL NEVER HIT THE FLOOR.

And thus,, it’s in force.

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 8:29 PM

I do not believe this is correct. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was signed by Clintoon but never ratified by the Senate. Consequently, it is not in force for the United States. A treaty can come into force, regardless of whether the US is a signatory, depending on its terms, but it would not be in force with respect to the United States unless ratified by the Senate.

In order to get around this, Obama would have to do this as an Executive Agreement. Because of the clear constitutional implications, I don’t think he could get away with that.

Firefly_76 on June 3, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Aint it GRAND! One of the highest ranking GUBBAMINT officials can NOT WAIT to commit treason and fail to uphold and defend the constitution and protect this sovereign nation.

TRAITOR.

TX-96 on June 3, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Well, I am surprised – no mention of “under the radar”.

OldEnglish on June 3, 2013 at 8:41 PM

I’m quite proud to be rabidly right. I assume you meant it as an insult. Epic fail.

I rank abuses of treaty law as just another avenue the prog leftards attempt to abuse.

But you try to elevate it with some global good purpose nonsense.

I’d be curious to know when the highest volumes of treaties were signed.

Right before large-scale wars?

Methinks so.

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 8:41 PM

A treaty, even one ratified by the Senate, DOES NOT TRUMP THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. See: Reid v Covert, as but one example.

Resist We Much on June 3, 2013 at 8:10 PM

But it goes a long way to the rat-eared coward’s views that we should surrender our rights to Turtle Bay.

Happy Nomad on June 3, 2013 at 8:32 PM

His views, along with many Progressives, are not unknown or even unusual. See Woodrow Wilson, for an excellent example.

While I think both signing and ratifying such a disastrous treaty, which would do NOTHING to prevent the supply of weapons by countries like China, North Korea, and Russia and doesn’t preempt the COTUS, it is still a very bad idea.

Resist We Much on June 3, 2013 at 8:41 PM

He can sign it all he wants, it will have zero force of law, and if he tries to enforce it, impeach.

William Teach on June 3, 2013 at 8:43 PM

While I think both signing and ratifying such a disastrous treaty, which would do NOTHING to prevent the supply of weapons by countries like China, North Korea, and Russia and doesn’t preempt the COTUS, it is still a very bad idea.

Resist We Much on June 3, 2013 at 8:41 PM

If this bill were signed and ratified it would give the gun-grabbers another front in which to attack the Second Amendment. It would give the anti-war radicals a defense for not supplying arms to allies like Israel. It would surrender much of our foreign policy to the United Nations.

It is more than a very bad idea.

Happy Nomad on June 3, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Barry BAMSTAHHHHHHH!!!!! YOU DA MANNNNNNNNNNN BAMMMMMMMY BABYYYY!!! LOVE YA BARRY OL BUDDY OL PALLLLLLL!!!!!! YAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

,GarandFan on June 3 at 8:14 PM

cableguy615 on June 3, 2013 at 8:51 PM

It doesn’t need to be ratified. Only not voted on at all. Everty dem can squeal about how much they hate it,, BECAUSE IT WILL NEVER HIT THE FLOOR.

And thus,, it’s in force.

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 8:29 PM

I think you need to brush up on your basic Constitution. One of the checks and balances is that the Senate has to ratify any treaty that comes out of the Executive Branch. For this treaty to have the force of law in America, it does need to be ratified.

Happy Nomad on June 3, 2013 at 8:53 PM

I can’t remember where I read it last year.

There was a law passed by Congress that makes treaties enforcable without ratifacation.

RWM,, I am pretty sure I’m right. Could you look in to it?

Dick Morris(yea I know) was all over it. So was Mark Levin.

I read the law. I just can’t remember what it was in reference to.

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 8:53 PM

John F’ing Kerry … man what a face!
Terrezza must have been high as kite the day she said ‘I do’ to THAT!
So, John what about that DD-214? You said you’d release it IN FULL over a DECADE AGO. Azzhole.

What about the MANPAD’s you intend to give (I repeat GIVE) to the Syrian Muzzies?
What about the 25,000 M-16′s Billy Bly Klinton GAVE to the PLA?
Yea, trools, I said TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND M-16′ (yea, the rifles with the 3-position switch) along with 200K rounds of ammo … enough to equip TWO DIVISIONS.
Yassir Arafat is SMILING and so are his megamillionaire wife and daughter.
Small Arms Treat. Hey, I got your small arms treaty right here.

Missilengr on June 3, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Aint it GRAND! One of the highest ranking GUBBAMINT officials can NOT WAIT to commit treason and fail to uphold and defend the constitution and protect this sovereign nation.

TRAITOR.

TX-96 on June 3, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Kerry is a traitor, identified a long time ago as such, no reason to expect he’s “changed” now that he’s got that SoS job he bought for himself.

Lourdes on June 3, 2013 at 8:54 PM

We follow the Constiution?

I understand the Constitution better than Congress.

I’m telling you Congress passed a law, UnConstitutional as it may be, that bypasses ratifacation.

At least in part.

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 8:58 PM

I’ve heard an many gun groups claim this treaty will created a national registration database of American gun owners but non have explained how. Anyone care to take a stab at it?

I’m saying it won’t, just sceptical of how this would work given our laws trump international law.

jawkneemusic on June 3, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Come and take it, motherf*ckers.

Midas on June 3, 2013 at 9:06 PM

News reports seem to ignore the fact that unless 2/3 of the Senate approves it Obamby’s signature is useless. They pretend the only that counts is the pRes signature. What Constitution?

TfromV on June 3, 2013 at 9:08 PM

I read the law. I just can’t remember what it was in reference to.

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Kyoto never was in force in the US because it was not ratified.

A law does NOT trump the Constitution.

The Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution states:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.

In the Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580 (1884), the Court held:

The Court established the precedent that treaties, which are described in the United States Constitution as “the supreme law of the land,” nonetheless do not hold a privileged position above other acts of Congress, and other laws affecting “its enforcement, modification, or repeal” are legitimate.

In Reid v Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), the Court held:

The Constitution supersedes all treaties ratified by the United States Senate.

Resist We Much on June 3, 2013 at 9:09 PM

still, Secretary of State John Kerry is pretty darn excited about the prospect of the United States hopping on board with the United Nations’ treaty:

Senate already voted 53-46 to inform the administration to run not walk to the nearest exit regarding this “treaty.” Who are the 21 you are going to get to switch votes especially with an election year coming up.

chemman on June 3, 2013 at 9:10 PM

1969 Geneva Convention- Law of treaties.

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Happy Nomad on June 3, 2013 at 8:29 PM

yup

cmsinaz on June 3, 2013 at 9:13 PM

News reports seem to ignore the fact that unless 2/3 of the Senate approves it Obamby’s signature is useless. They pretend the only that counts is the pRes signature. What Constitution?

TfromV on June 3, 2013 at 9:08 PM

They did the same thing with Kyoto. Gives the lazy rat-eared coward gun-grabbing creds with the left even though the treaty will not be ratified.

Happy Nomad on June 3, 2013 at 9:16 PM

1969 Geneva Convention- Law of treaties.

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 9:11 PM

The Geneva Convention does not change the treaty process in the United States. In fact, Congress could change the terms of the Geneva Convention treaties or revoke it completely and the international community could do NOTHING.

The Constitution trumps ALL TREATIES and states, specifically, how a treaty obtains the force of law in the United States.

Resist We Much on June 3, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Oh, I agree the Constitution supercedes.

The regime doesn’t. They believe in global law.

They are going by the “Law of Treaties”.

Who’s gonna stop them? Eric Holder? Boehner? Reid?

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 9:18 PM

It’s the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 and the law, as I stated above, remains the same.

Resist We Much on June 3, 2013 at 9:20 PM

They are going by the “Law of Treaties”.

Who’s gonna stop them? Eric Holder? Boehner? Reid?

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 9:18 PM

The Supreme Court.

Resist We Much on June 3, 2013 at 9:20 PM

While we look forward to signing the treaty, there are remaining translation issues that need to be resolved.

Here again, Tim Carney is a paid liar.

exdeadhead on June 3, 2013 at 9:22 PM

John Kerry and the crew ARE the international community.

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 9:22 PM

1969 Geneva Convention- Law of treaties.

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 9:11 PM

I don’t think we are a signatory of the 1969 Geneva Conventions. The US stopped signing when they (GC) made collecting intelligence via radio waves and interception of various communications unlawful. It would have put the NSA out of business. The country as a matter of course adheres to most of them but it has no for of law in the US.

chemman on June 3, 2013 at 9:23 PM

Kerry: “You have to sign it before you know what’s in it.”

“I’m Nancy Pelosi, and I approve of this message.

onlineanalyst on June 3, 2013 at 9:25 PM

John Kerry and the crew ARE the international community.

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 9:22 PM

Sooooo, if the House refuses to fund the implementation, including the establishment of a registry, what’s Kerry and the crew gonna do? Whine to the UN? Is the UN gonna declare war on the US until it acquiesces and complies with an un-ratified Treaty that has no force of law in the United States?

Do you think Harry Reid and his vulnerable Senate Democrats are going to vote to establish and fund a gun registry?

Resist We Much on June 3, 2013 at 9:28 PM

I believe you weren’t so hot on the Supremes earlier today.

I’m not arguing law. I’m arguing that we follow it anymore.

I would never argue law with you. I’d lose.

But when you have a lawless regime,, the law won’t win.

Scotus is already jacked up.

I never understood, maybe you can explain. Why so much emohasus on precedence? Bad ideas compound.

It’s a tax.

You would be the last one I would expect to have faith in SCOTUS.

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 9:37 PM

*emphasis*

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 9:38 PM

That’s my point. The Senate won’t vote. At all. They don’t need to. They aren’t following the Constitution, intenational law trumps it for them.

What has Boehner defunded so far? Obamacare? The IRS? EPA? DOJ? anything?

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 9:46 PM

Boner could defund the UN for that matter.

Will he?

No.

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 9:53 PM

Here again, Tim Carney is a paid liar.

exdeadhead on June 3, 2013 at 9:22 PM

And so is Jay Carney.

Happy Nomad on June 3, 2013 at 9:56 PM

You would be the last one I would expect to have faith in SCOTUS.

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 9:37 PM

I don’t have a lot of faith in any institution, but there has, literally, NEVER been a case where a treaty has trumped the Constitution or where an un-ratified treaty has had the force of law in the United States.

Reid v Covert is a precedent set by, arguably, the most Progressive Supreme Court in the history of the United States.

I never understood, maybe you can explain. Why so much emohasus on precedence? Bad ideas compound.

It is a problem that is directly traceable to Progressivism.

When I was in law school, we NEVER studied the Constitution, Federalist Papers, or even legislative history in many cases. Instead, since the turn of the 20th century, the focus of the law and the courts has been on one thing: Precedent.

This is the reason why I asked NotCoach earlier today if he really believed that was how ‘The Law’ worked. When I refer to ‘The Law,’ I don’t mean the Constitution, per se. I am referring to the judicial process and the evolution of the law, which has resulted in ‘constitutional rights’ being based on precedent, not the Constitution.

Understand that I do not agree with this approach, as I am much more of an originalist than anything close to approaching ‘Progressive.’

Bad ideas do compound.

Resist We Much on June 3, 2013 at 9:56 PM

Impeach.

ThePrez on June 3, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Yes, but what the GOP should also do before any of this:

1. Stop all funding for th U.N.
2. Use Emminent Domain to demolish the buildin
3. Expel all U.N. “diplomats”

Side note: They should also defund the IRS, but, alas, that ain’t happening either.

SouthernGent on June 3, 2013 at 9:58 PM

Boner could defund the UN for that matter.

Will he?

No.

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 9:53 PM

Yes, he could. On the other hand, funding a national gun registry because of an un-ratified treaty is an entirely different political animal.

And, make no mistake, even if the Senate doesn’t vote on ratification, but Obama attempted to enforce the treaty nonetheless, Reid would HAVE to hold a vote on funding for implementation and enforcement.

Resist We Much on June 3, 2013 at 9:59 PM

Original intent. Now I’m totally in love.

I never understood till I read the Federalist papers.

I struggle reading them. There’s a lot of there, there.

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 10:15 PM

We haven’t had a budget in half a decade. Fungible?

The non-existant and borrowed money comes from the un-accountable endless pool.

Thier is no accounting in a socialist putsche.

Come’on.

You know history.

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 10:26 PM

*there*

It was 103°f here today. I’m beat.

wolly4321 on June 3, 2013 at 10:44 PM

RWM, thanks as always for clarifying and explaining the legal situation.

AesopFan on June 4, 2013 at 12:07 AM

Obama intends to tell the truth eventually, arguing that technical reasons explain the delay

Pretty much explains every scandal that involves the Obama WH.

TulsAmerican on June 4, 2013 at 12:19 AM

No body can force the House of Representatives to provide funds for the implementation or enforcement of a Treaty, including the UN or other body. Obamacare…

Resist We Much on June 3, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Fixed it for you….

Tenwheeler on June 4, 2013 at 7:20 AM