20 replies to this topic

[Dave D]

Not a slow news day is it?

http://www.nraila.or...ear-future.aspx

As we reported last month, on April 2, the United Nations General Assembly voted 153-4 to pass the Arms Trade Treaty, with the United States voting in favor and several countries abstaining. The vote in the General Assembly pushed the treaty process forward after negotiations twice failed to deliver on the goal of developing the treaty by consensus. The Obama Administration is expected to sign the treaty soon after it is opened for signature on June 3.

According to a May 16 Amnesty International article, a senior US diplomat--Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Countryman--has confirmed the U.S. government will be quick to sign the new treaty.  According to the article, Countryman said on Wednesday that the United States would sign the ATT "in the very near future."  

If the deeply problematic treaty is signed, the fight will move to the U.S. Senate, where the Obama administration would need to find 67 senators to ratify the treaty.

Of course, anti-gun Amnesty International approves of the treaty and is advocating its signing and ratification.  In addition, Amnesty International has gone so far as to claim that the treaty will not affect "domestic gun control regulations."

On the contrary, the ATT does indeed threaten the rights and privacy of American gun owners. Signatories will be encouraged to keep information on the "end users" of arms imported into their territory and supply such information to the exporting country. Exporting nations, nearly all of which have civilian firearm control regimes far harsher than the U.S., will be encouraged to take the firearm control laws of an importing country into account before approving a transfer of arms. And the treaty also encourages states to adopt domestic legislation to facilitate the treaty's onerous requirements.

A majority of senators have already made clear their opposition to ratifying the ATT. On March 23, 53 senators endorsed an amendment to the Senate Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2014, "establish[ing] a deficit neutral fund" to oppose United States entrance into the treaty. Additionally, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kans.), along with 32 cosponsors, has put forth a concurrent resolution expressing the Senate's opposition to the ATT, as it "fails to expressly recognize the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms and the individual right of personal self-defense... and thus risks infringing on freedoms protected by the Second Amendment."

Unfortunately, once a treaty has been signed, it normally remains available for the Senate to ratify in perpetuity, unless a later president withdraws from it. This means that American gun owners must remain vigilant in ensuring this treaty is never ratified. The NRA will continue to keep gun owners up to date on any movement toward ratification, and will work with our allies in the Senate to ensure the treaty remains unratified.

[BobPistol]

The government has no right to ratify a treaty which violates the constitution.

[Patriots & Tyrants]

Did I miss the part where this made its way through the senate?

[cm.stites]

it goes to the senate AFTER  he signs it.

[Livewire18]

And then there is revolutionary war v.2

[SFC Stu]

Never trust this administration to do the right thing!

[skinnyb82]

Yeah the Senate ratifying it with a 2/3 majority that's gonna happen.  He can just say it was deemed to have been ratified due to a majority of other countries ratifying it.  No treaty can override or amendment the Constitution and there's SCOTUS precedent for that one so...go ahead, sign something that contradicts the Constitution and claim its been ratified because a bunch of other countries ratified of (because obviously we support it if Greece does).  Why not right?  Lets go for scandal #4.  Pile 'em on at least the MSM won't care about this one.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Edited by skinnyb82, 17 May 2013 - 08:53 PM.

[cm.stites]

skinnyb82, on 17 May 2013 - 08:51 PM, said:

Yeah the Senate ratifying it with a 2/3 majority that's gonna happen.  He can just say it was deemed to have been ratified due to a majority of other countries ratifying it.  No treaty can override or amendment the Constitution and there's SCOTUS precedent for that one so...go ahead, sign something that contradicts the Constitution and claim its been ratified because a bunch of other countries ratified of (because obviously we support it if Greece does).  Why not right?  Lets go for scandal #4.  Pile 'em on at least the MSM won't care about this one.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

wont be the first treaty a us president has signed that didnt gain the votes to be ratified.He knows they dont have the votes to pass it hes hoping they can take more senate seats back in 2014 so he can get it signed.

[skinnyb82]

Yea he only need 10 more Senators that's completely possible....with voter fraud on a scale so massive it would put Iranian and Venezuelan "elections" to shame.  Notice I factored in Mark Kirk as a "yea" vote.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

[MINOOKAJOE]

This has been going on for to long IN THIS ADMINISTRATION.What bugs me They would even think about it,suprise ,suprise,surprise.

[cm.stites]

he needs 21 more votes... only 46  agreed to sign it while 53 voted against joining it on inhofes amendment( was non binding)Kirk was actually a yes vote on inhofes amendment( meaning he voted against joining..   it takes 67 votes to ratify a treaty..

heres the link to the rollcall on inhofes amendment.

http://www.senate.go...on=1&vote=00091

[cgs]

BobPistol, on 17 May 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

The government has no right to ratify a treaty which violates the constitution.

They may not have a RIGHT, but that may not stop them from ratifying anyways.  They violate out rights every day.

[vezpa]

skinnyb82, on 17 May 2013 - 08:51 PM, said:

Yeah the Senate ratifying it with a 2/3 majority that's gonna happen.  He can just say it was deemed to have been ratified due to a majority of other countries ratifying it.  No treaty can override or amendment the Constitution and there's SCOTUS precedent for that one so...go ahead, sign something that contradicts the Constitution and claim its been ratified because a bunch of other countries ratified of (because obviously we support it if Greece does).  Why not right?  Lets go for scandal #4.  Pile 'em on at least the MSM won't care about this one.
Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Scandal # 5, Don't forget Fast and Furious.
.

[bob]

I like the idea of the senate repudiating his acceptance of the treaty.

[skinnyb82]

F&F is all bur swept under the rug.  Nothing here folks move along only ATF guns killing a Border Patrol Agent and a few hundred Mexicans but nothing to see here.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Edited by skinnyb82, 18 May 2013 - 03:48 PM.

[Patriots & Tyrants]

cgs, on 18 May 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

BobPistol, on 17 May 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

The government has no right to ratify a treaty which violates the constitution.

They may not have a RIGHT, but that may not stop them from ratifying anyways.  They violate out rights every day.

Can the SCOTUS weigh in if an unconstitutional treaty is ratified? I mean can they invalidate a treaty itself, or can they only rule on the laws passed to meet the requirements of that treaty?

Edited by Patriots & Tyrants, 18 May 2013 - 05:11 PM.

[Patriots & Tyrants]

vezpa, on 18 May 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

skinnyb82, on 17 May 2013 - 08:51 PM, said:

Yeah the Senate ratifying it with a 2/3 majority that's gonna happen.  He can just say it was deemed to have been ratified due to a majority of other countries ratifying it.  No treaty can override or amendment the Constitution and there's SCOTUS precedent for that one so...go ahead, sign something that contradicts the Constitution and claim its been ratified because a bunch of other countries ratified of (because obviously we support it if Greece does).  Why not right?  Lets go for scandal #4.  Pile 'em on at least the MSM won't care about this one.
Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Scandal # 5, Don't forget Fast and Furious.
.

Don't forget #6, the Solyndra scandal...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra

and the now brewing scandal #7: GM Gate as I am calling it
http://www.wnd.com/2...?cat_orig=money

[cm.stites]

Patriots & Tyrants, on 18 May 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

cgs, on 18 May 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

BobPistol, on 17 May 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

The government has no right to ratify a treaty which violates the constitution.

They may not have a RIGHT, but that may not stop them from ratifying anyways.  They violate out rights every day.

Can the SCOTUS weigh in if an unconstitutional treaty is ratified? I mean can they invalidate a treaty itself, or can they only rule on the laws passed to meet the requirements of that treaty?

Yes  treatys have to follow the constitution.

[FST_Kent]

So.........the U.S. could still sign the treaty to abstain from using incedniary bombs that we never signed decades ago?

[cm.stites]

FST_Kent, on 18 May 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

So.........the U.S. could still sign the treaty to abstain from using incedniary bombs that we never signed decades ago?

Unless a president has removed us from that treaty ,Yes

[FST_Kent]

cm.stites, on 18 May 2013 - 07:38 PM, said:

FST_Kent, on 18 May 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

So.........the U.S. could still sign the treaty to abstain from using incedniary bombs that we never signed decades ago?

Unless a president has removed us from that treaty ,Yes

Well don't tell Obummer if we haven't.