The Senate won’t ratify the UN’s arms control treaty, but John Kerry is going to sign it anyway

posted at 6:01 pm on September 24, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Obama administration officials already signaled that they have every intention of ignoring the wishes and demands of the legislature on this one earlier this year, but the now infamous United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty is finally just about finished after years of political meandering and John Kerry is all set to put his pen to paper. Via Fox News:

Secretary of State John Kerry plans to sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation on Wednesday, a senior State Department official told Fox News — despite warnings from lawmakers that the Senate will not ratify the agreement.

A State official said the treaty would “reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes,” while protecting gun rights.

“The treaty builds on decades of cooperative efforts to stem the international, illegal, and illicit trade in conventional weapons that benefits terrorists and rogue agents,” the official said. …

What impact the treaty will have in curbing the estimated $60 billion global arms trade remains to be seen. The U.N. treaty will take effect after 50 countries ratify it, and a lot will depend on which ones ratify and which ones don’t, and how stringently it is implemented.

The United Nations and their notoriously poor record at accomplishing much of anything besides mass corruption and the legitimization of dictators still isn’t sure what the impact of the treaty will be and how stringently it will be implemented? Man, that inspires some major confidence. Yeah, let’s sign that.

You’ll recall that the Senate, also earlier this year, signaled their outright opposition to the United States’ joining the treaty and their disinclination to ratify the thing by the necessary two-thirds majority:

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced an amendment that would prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in order to uphold the Second Amendment. His amendment passed on a 53-46 vote.

Republicans have been critical of President Obama’s decision to consider the treaty, although Obama has said he would not vote for anything that would violate the Second Amendment. …

“We’re negotiating a treaty that cedes our authority to have trade agreements with our allies in terms of trading arms,” Inhofe said. “This is probably the last time this year that you’ll be able to vote for your Second Amendment rights.”

But let that not stop the Obama administration in going right along with globalist bureaucrats insisting that there is no way in heck that this treaty could ever be abused to squash individual rights or back the United States into a corner on foreign-policy strategy — it’s just to help deter terrorism and violence, guys, really!


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

What an embarrassment to humanity the horse’s azz is.

Schadenfreude on September 24, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Did not stop ObamaCare along with many other things… why would it here?

watertown on September 24, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Does Kerry get another Purple Heart for this?

faraway on September 24, 2013 at 6:11 PM

What could go wrong!

Isn’t this just a futile symbolic gesture from the WH?

AesopFan on September 24, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Isn’t this just a futile symbolic gesture from the WH?

AesopFan on September 24, 2013 at 6:11 PM

The White House can do whatever it pleases since Congress won’t stand up to them. So it can probably force the implementation of this treaty.

Doomberg on September 24, 2013 at 6:13 PM

So.. it’s illegal? It’s meaningless because he’s signing the law illegally.

Yeah.. the law is meaningless now. We’ve got a Democrat Attorney General here in PA that is refusing to uphold the law too. She’s pledged to go after guns and has refused to uphold laws she doesn’t like. They’re all doing it.

JellyToast on September 24, 2013 at 6:14 PM

So what consequences would there be if an American President decided to run guns to drug cartels in Mexico? Or maybe that same American President decides to secretly arm Syrian rebels via Libya? What sort of actions would the UN take against an illegal arms dealer like that?

Hill60 on September 24, 2013 at 6:14 PM

So it can probably force the implementation of this treaty.

Doomberg on September 24, 2013 at 6:13 PM

I don`t even want to think of what`ll happen if they try……. Oh dear. :-/

ThePrez on September 24, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Obama knows you just do something and then Congress huffs and puffs and then quickly does its best to ignore that it ever happened.

albill on September 24, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Curious stance to take given the Obama administrations has been caught smuggling arms to terrorists and drug cartels on several occasions.

pat on September 24, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Another Red Line?

faraway on September 24, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Isn’t this blatantly unconstitutional?

steebo77 on September 24, 2013 at 6:16 PM

These elites think there is no bridge too far for them. Maybe they are right.

GaltBlvnAtty on September 24, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Let’s see, this administration prostrates itself to dictators but treats its fellow Americans who value their Constitutional rights as political prisoners. I guess Congress has bargained to overlook all of this as long as they got their treasured Obamacare exemption.

DaveDief on September 24, 2013 at 6:20 PM

What’s Kerry got to do with this except that he is the Secretary of State? Did you expect him to resign rather than sign it?

Kerry’s signature has no bearing on the obligation of the the US except insofar as the President approves of it being signed because he has no authority to to sign something unless the President approve of it being signed in the President’s name.

Dusty on September 24, 2013 at 6:25 PM

communicating flexibility to vladimir

t8stlikchkn on September 24, 2013 at 6:29 PM

idiot

cmsinaz on September 24, 2013 at 6:30 PM

“The treaty builds on decades of cooperative efforts to stem the international, illegal, and illicit trade in conventional weapons that benefits terrorists and rogue agents,” the official said. …

Would it put Obama and Holder in jail for illegal weapon trafficking?

Midas on September 24, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Horse Head signed it because it’s safe for him to do so, he knows that not only will Congress not go along with it but he’s in an unelected position and can’t get unelected.

I’m embarrassed to have this put-on accent speaking wonder turd in such a prominent role for my nation, embarrassed, in fact I would be less embarrassed if Charles Manson had the role.

Bishop on September 24, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Isn’t this blatantly unconstitutional?

steebo77 on September 24, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Obama Administration doing something blatantly unconstitutional?

*checks calendar*

It’s a day that ends with a ‘y’, so… yep, no surprise here.

Midas on September 24, 2013 at 6:35 PM

So it can probably force the implementation of this treaty.

Doomberg on September 24, 2013 at 6:13 PM

If congress lets them.

Congressional leaders need to alert the UN and other signers of the treaty that Kerry acted illegally. They should state firmly that the US has not ratified this treaty and until it does the US is not a part of it.. whether Kerry puts his signature on it or not.

He may sign it.. but he clearly has no authority to do so nor can he legally do so. He can sign it 50 ways to Sunday.. draw scribbles on it, kiss it and make love to it.. but it is meaningless.

If congress doesn’t stand up for the law.. then who will?

That’s why I would do if I were there… hold a press conference..make a public statement right away that any signing of treaties without congressional ratification is meaningless.

This alerts both the nations involved, alerts the UN and alerts the American people.

JellyToast on September 24, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Oh yeaeth! our Winter Soldier on the world stage. He fits right in with Obama’s cabinet of idjits.

DanMan on September 24, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Isn’t this blatantly unconstitutional?

steebo77 on September 24, 2013 at 6:16 PM

I think it’s closer to this:

Isn’t this just a futile symbolic gesture from the WH?

AesopFan on September 24, 2013 at 6:11 PM

The President or a representative can submit a signed document to the Senate, but if the Senate ignores it or fails to pass a resolution of ratification by a 2/3rds vote, then there is no treaty. Treaty ratification only takes place when instruments of ratification are exchanged between the U.S. and U.N.

As AP has pointed out, the Senate has already told Obama what it will do with his treaty.

Remember, Clinton signed the U.N. Convention of the Rights of the Child treaty in 1995, but never submitted it to the Senate, where it would have been ignored or rejected. Obama actually promised to submit the treaty… but hasn’t. Wonder if that’s how he’ll handle this one– or submit it and see it rejected outright by Reid’s Senate. Like his budgets.

de rigueur on September 24, 2013 at 6:38 PM

I just signed a petition at a gun show this weekend, supposedly to go to Rand Paul to fight this.

dentarthurdent on September 24, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Go ahead and sign it, John.

And after you’ve signed it, use it to wipe your azz the next time you take a dump, because that’s the only useful thing that piece of paper will ever accomplish.

AZCoyote on September 24, 2013 at 6:43 PM

Go to hell Kerry.

You damn traitor.

TX-96 on September 24, 2013 at 6:47 PM

…this azzhole is OUR secretary of state!

KOOLAID2 on September 24, 2013 at 6:50 PM

How we long for the days of Hillary as Secretary of State….. Ok, not really. Indeed, the only way Obama could’ve picked worse than the 2 Secretaries he’s had is if he’d named himself or Biden to the post.

Bitter Clinger on September 24, 2013 at 6:52 PM

They really don’t… need no stinkin Constitution, …………let alone uphold one.

FlaMurph on September 24, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Let’s see, this administration prostrates itself to dictators but treats its fellow Americans who value their Constitutional rights as political prisoners. I guess Congress has bargained to overlook all of this as long as they got their treasured Obamacare exemption. are not called RACISTS!

DaveDief on September 24, 2013 at 6:20 PM

All Hail the Messiah

dmann on September 24, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Ok, not really. Indeed, the only way Obama could’ve picked worse than the 2 Secretaries he’s had is if he’d named himself or Biden to the post.
 
Bitter Clinger on September 24, 2013 at 6:52 PM

 
It’s sad, but it’s all a blatant “fairness” game from the community organizer.
 
These were all failed presidential candidates, so they deserved something. There are no other reasons (like qualifications) for them to have the positions.

rogerb on September 24, 2013 at 7:00 PM

I don’t see how the US has any obligation to enforce this treaty. Sure.. Obama may try but even if the congress does nothing.. any future President at any time can simply state… “That treaty was signed illegally. We have laws for treaties. The law wasn’t followed. It’s worthless. Sorry about that.”

JellyToast on September 24, 2013 at 7:08 PM

NO PEOPLE, it’s NOT “blatantly unconstitutional.” The POTUS is the CHIEF DIPLOMAT, he or his/her designee can sign ANYTHING, it’s the Senate’s job to ratify or not a signed treaty.

What WILL happen is that the WH will issue a number of EO’s pursuant tot he treaty…Congress can or canNOT accede to those EO’s. We’ll see how that goes.

My question to john Kerry is, What would Jenjis Khan think of this treaty?”

JFKY on September 24, 2013 at 7:09 PM

So what consequences would there be if an American President decided to run guns to drug cartels in Mexico? Or maybe that same American President decides to secretly arm Syrian rebels via Libya? What sort of actions would the UN take against an illegal arms dealer like that?
Hill60 on September 24, 2013 at 6:14 PM

He’ll got the Nobel Peace Prize so shut up, racist. *

Go to hell Kerry.
You damn traitor.
TX-96 on September 24, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Can I get an “Amen”, brothers and sisters? (you would have been well within decorum if you had dropped an F bomb in that comment)

* /obligatory sarc tag

turfmann on September 24, 2013 at 7:12 PM

JellyToast on September 24, 2013 at 7:08 PM

The treaty will never be approved by the Senate, so it will never be legally binding on the U.S. Someone has to sign it in order to submit it to the Senate– although when Clinton signed the U.N. Convention of the Rights of the Child treaty in 1995, he never bothered to submit it and it has gone nowhere– but in this case Kerry’s signature will be worth about as much as the one on his huntin’ license.

de rigueur on September 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Isn’t this blatantly unconstitutional?

steebo77 on September 24, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Not really. It’s not a treaty to which we are party until it is ratified by the Senate, which basically means any Treaty with the United States needs 68 ‘signatures’.

The president might be able to conduct some foreign affairs in a manner that abides the treaty but there would probably be some limits, but he could do the same without there being a treaty.

Clinton signed Kyoto but never set it to the Senate for ratification.

Dusty on September 24, 2013 at 7:16 PM

While all the above comments are correct that this treaty lacks the force of law, I’d still advise monitoring the activities of the Commerce Dept., the State Dept. and DoJ.

They will make their actions quite clear if they quietly adopt procedures, policies, and actions that mimic the treaty in any way.

I don’t think I have to remind anybody that these people maneuver thru regulations like a rat cruises thru a sewer…

CPT. Charles on September 24, 2013 at 7:23 PM

What did we expect from a cut n run traitor like our winter “soldier”?

The shrapnel he claims he took in his arse went to the wrong place, I’d say.

I wish he’d have hooked up with the slut Jane in his hey day. We should have deported both of them long ago…or exiled them at least.

Twana on September 24, 2013 at 7:27 PM

no way in heck that this treaty could ever be abused to squash individual rights or back the United States into a corner on foreign-policy strategy

As often as our own government abuses individual rights I would suspect they would be more than willing to abuse our gun rights in the name of a treaty we haven’t even approved.

chemman on September 24, 2013 at 7:33 PM

While all the above comments are correct that this treaty lacks the force of law, I’d still advise monitoring the activities of the Commerce Dept., the State Dept. and DoJ.

They will make their actions quite clear if they quietly adopt procedures, policies, and actions that mimic the treaty in any way.

I don’t think I have to remind anybody that these people maneuver thru regulations like a rat cruises thru a sewer…

CPT. Charles on September 24, 2013 at 7:23 PM

Exactly. Always keep your eyes on what the other hand is doing.

PatriotGal2257 on September 24, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Can we please get rid of these asinine Democrats? Please?

HiJack on September 24, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Not to worry, Roberts will vote that Kerry’s signature makes it legal anyways….he’ll mumble something about penumbra for international taxes and leave quickly

Don L on September 24, 2013 at 7:39 PM

I would be less embarrassed if Charles Manson had the role.
Bishop on September 24, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Charley don’t drone.

Akzed on September 24, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Kerry is as disgusting and repulsive now as he was during the Vietnam war.

rplat on September 24, 2013 at 8:34 PM

Senator Jim Inhofe to file TREASON charges against John Kerry

An anonymous source has told PPSIMMONS News and Ministry that he has called the office of Senator Jim Inhofe who has confirmed that he will be filing charges of treason against John Kerry if he signs the United Nations Arms Treaty on Wednesday this week.

Akzed on September 24, 2013 at 8:35 PM

Go to hell Kerry.
You damn traitor.
TX-96 on September 24, 2013 at 6:47 PM

I have been waiting patiently now for a few decades to pi** on Jane Fonda’s grave. John Kerry has now made the list … and thinking about it, I just might bring a six-pack of beer to his.

M240H on September 24, 2013 at 8:35 PM

So what… Bill Clinton signed Kyoto… who cares. Congress won’t ratify it. End of story.

Karmashock on September 24, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Meaningless other than one more submission of how much this administration hates this country and its laws.

Ellis on September 24, 2013 at 9:07 PM

The Senate won’t ratify the UN’s arms control treaty, but John Kerry is going to sign it anyway

Yeah, these Marxists are doing stuff like this knowing it doesn’t really matter./s

Dr. ZhivBlago on September 24, 2013 at 10:11 PM

John Kerry is a vile human being, and a perfect representative of the democrat party and progressivism overall.

Congrats! He is all yours!

Murphy9 on September 24, 2013 at 10:59 PM

Hey, John, even with your Leftist friends, this won’t make up for having your butt kicked by W!
And it only confirms to us on the Right, that the Swift-boat guys were right about you….
You are a Jerk!

Another Drew on September 25, 2013 at 2:09 AM

The most lawless administration in history.

Chris of Rights on September 25, 2013 at 8:42 AM

He wanted to be our President so he could submit to the UN.

Guess we dodged a bullet there.

Pun intended.

smoothsailing on September 25, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Is Kerry aware that a SecState can also be impeached?

PJ Emeritus on September 25, 2013 at 12:51 PM

The Senate voted unanimously, in July 1997, for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution. The resolution stated that it was not the sense of the Senate that the United States should be a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol.

Clinton went ahead and signed the Protocol, which of course was never ratified by the Senate and never will be.

So there is a precedent for Democratic presidents to sign meaningless treaties

J Baustian on September 25, 2013 at 12:54 PM

So once again John Kerry shows contempt for the Constitution.

Well, that’s nothing new.

But this time, he’s also showing contempt for the advise-and-consent function of the Senate, which has already made clear that this treaty will not be ratified.

If the Obama administration believes, in the classic phrase, that “politics stops at the water’s edge,” then they need to quit antagonizing their opponents by deliberately taking actions in foreign policy that they know will not be accepted by Congress, even by the body of Congress that the Democrats control.

What we have here is the same thing that led to Joe Wilson’s “You lie” outburst during one State of the Union, and Alito shaking his head and muttering “that’s not true” during another. Obama deliberately makes partisan comments on occasions when no one is able to publicly disagree with him, then wants to pretend offense if it provokes a reaction during the speech. He wants all respect to be given him, but will offer none to anyone else.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 25, 2013 at 1:22 PM

The gun grabbing zealots in the Obama administration will stop at nothing short of complete disarmament of the American people.

NEVER forget that this is their ultimate goal!

Freddy on September 25, 2013 at 4:53 PM