Skip to comments.Dick Morris: Obama to Sign UN Gun-Grab Treaty and RAM IT DOWN OUR THROATS
Posted on 07/18/2012 4:24:53 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
click here to read article
“Oh, OK then.
People who take Constitutional interpretation from a toe-sucker are bound to get easily riled up.
Never mind that the Constitution, and the Supreme Court say otherwise - if Dick Morris says it, that’s good enough for me /s.’
The Constitution can be worked around -as we learned recently- and the court is not as concerned with upholding it as in being invited to Beltway dinner parties -as we also learned recently
And did anybody see THAT coming?
Nobody I know did
I dunno if Morris understands the Constitution... but he sure seems to have Obama sussed better than many
Yup, they went in to save the children by burning them up. I remember that day. April 19th. It was on my birthday.
Boehner is a gutless piece of shit.
“I wish we could all be like Texas. Thats why I love Texas so much!”
If Obama wins or cancels the election and Texas secedes, that’s where I’LL be~ I hope they’d be willing to grant a Yank a green card
Nothing justifies what happened there.
However, it did not justify us going all “founding fathers” on our government either.
Thing is, they can only get away with so much before people DO go all “founding fathers” on them. Claire Wolfe famously said, “America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”
This was in the 90’s
I still think we are at that awkward stage, but when I don’t, I’ll be Mel Gibson in The Patriot. But it took significant personal events to turn him around. Likewise here.
I’m not saying it necessarily needs to be a personal tragedy, but it’s got to get a lot worse than it is now. So far, people are talking about what “could” happen.
I’m watching for when it “does” happen, if you and the FBI reading this get my drift.
I think there are more Oathkeepers out there than we realize. (I hope!)
The only way you repeal the 2nd Amendment is by force of arms (use of military troops. The citizen of this Country are not going to willingly comply with a UN treaty. The Police are not capable of taking our weapons from us and I truly believe here would be open revolt if the military was ordered to do so. So what> The UN is going to send UN troops in? Get serious.......”
Did you read the post?
Obama would sign it and we are bound until the Senate REJECTS it, not just parked until the RATIFY it
So Reid won’t vote on it... and if Obama won re election they’ll incrementally inflict as much as they can get away with-
I’d rather err on the side of caution and vigilance than fear appearing to be an alarmist, you can be paranoid enough with this vile regime!
Dick Morris called into the Hannity radio show the other day and tried to talk about this and Sean wouldn’t let him. He kept cutting him off. So, it makes me wonder why. Does Hannity have some doubts, or is this topic off limits for some reason?
Changed to Morris’ petition on my site, here’s the link
tx_eggman is right, xzins, you've got it wrong.
2/3 of Senators present can ratify a treaty.
@ PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 106th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
2/3 of the Senate wasn't there. Those present voted for the ratification. The quorum call was rescinded with no objection. That's 34 treaties ratified with a hand count!
It doesn't matter if they aren't present when the vote comes up.
So we have the potential of all these "stand up guys" simply not showing up when it comes time to vote and they can then truthfully claim "I was against this treaty".
They need to formalize their intent to object.
It could be ratified due to one person simply not doing their job properly.
Senate Consideration of Treaties September 15, 2009
The number of senators that must be present for the Senate to do business. The Constitution requires a majority of senators (51) for a quorum. Often, fewer senators are actually present on the floor, but the Senate presumes that a quorum is present unless the contrary is shown by a roll call vote or quorum call.
“The President may bind the country to anything he may say or do until the Senate considers the treaty in full” (pg 93):
This was thought necessary by the Framers to allow the president the ability to negotiate, and he can agree to things piecemeal with the UN or other nations and they hold until considered by the Senate IN FULL.
Yet another concern would be Obama ramming it through in a lame-duck session... the possibility of that strategy being implemented here is real indeed.
Obama signing it is BAD anyway you look at it, and I wouldn’t be count on the Constitution -which Obama routinely ignores- NOR the Supreme Court, who seem more interested in working around it at this point.
Even the UN disagrees with him!
@UN Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) Treaty Section
2. Acceptance and Approval
The instruments of "acceptance" or "approval" of a treaty have the same legal effect as ratification and consequently express the consent of a state to be bound by a treaty. In the practice of certain states acceptance and approval have been used instead of ratification when, at a national level, constitutional law does not require the treaty to be ratified by the head of state.
[Arts.2 (1) (b) and 14 (2), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969]
Having noted that it should also be noted that the US was not a signatory of the Vienna Convention.
Good on Morris for calling attention to it, but he should at least know what he's talking about.
You got a video link?
This is what Morris is talking about, and I read alternative views elsewhere... sounds like vigilance is the way to go in absence of certainty, no?
Like Levin says.. we are now living in a post-Constructional US- 2 out of 3 branches now openly disregard/twist it
How is Romney looking now, folks?
I don’t. I wish I could say I did, but looking back at the lack on action when obamacare was rammed down our throats, I can’t. Then it was that and since from, their point of view, we did nothing except bitch a little, now this. And it will something else next. Like Hitler in Europe during the 1930s he [obama] won’t stop until he is stopped. And again like Hitler, the only thing that will stop him is blood.
There is no such quote as that!
Here is the whole sentence, not the snippet you have up!
There are only two returns for "full" on pages 93-97 and neither of them go with your "quote".
I suggest everyone read reply 119 after reading reply 114.
“2/3 of Senators present can ratify a treaty.”
Good find, Philman-
Now watch them schedule a midnight session on Xmas eve!
There is also the possiblity of Obama ramming it through in s lame duck session.
We considered them needing to be ratified in the past because the Senate would not have dared played the tricks we’ve seen lately, nobody even considered the possiblity of the upper house refusing to even VOTE on a budget until now, right?
Good information, Phil.
However, the point is that the president cannot unilaterally sign a treaty AND have that treaty be the supreme law of the land.
Therefore, the Senate must have the 2/3rd vote for it to be ratified. Whether the full Senate or merely 2/3 of a quorum, the vote still must take place for the treaty to become law.
Of course, all 34 of the objecting senators SHOULD forward their notice of intent to object.
I botched the “all” in the quote, but what’s the difference-? just asking.
It says we can be bound to international treaties until the Senate looks at it... that’s the entire concern right there, no?
You seem more studied than I but that is what I read that made me fear Morris could be right
OKAY- I found the clip, he IS relying on the Vienna Convention, which we have signed, to implement the ATT WITHOUT Senate ratification
SO your point about the Vienna Convention is indeed the pertinent one... I sure hope you are right -not Morris- and that we are not bound to the VC, because that’s where Morris sees reason for concern here
Much obliged for the input and education today, Philman
Additional cause for concern re. Vienna Convention:
“Some countries that have not ratified the Convention recognize it as a restatement of customary law and binding upon them as such”
Perhaps we’ll be one of THOSE nations, if Dear Leader says we are...
111 nations have ratified it, and we are not exactly in the best company in not having done so... these are the 15 signatories who have not fully ratified:
“Afghanistan, Bolivia, Cambodia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Iran, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Madagascar, Nepal, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago, United States, Zambia.”
Whereas the great majority of the people of our country who have given intelligent consideration to this question in all its aspects are earnestly demanding that the work be inaugurated without further delay: Therefore it is
Resolved, That the National Board of Trade especially urges that the measure now pending in the United States Senate, above referred to (H. R. 2538), be passed without delay, to the end that immediate steps be taken for the commencement of the work on the lines recommended by the United States Canal Commission.
Under such conditions, created by the act of our Government, the Senate, whose alleged powers are most nearly involved in this serious question, should either affirm or disaffirm the right of the President to make these basic agreements with Costa Rica and Nicaragua.
Did you even read any of it before you linked to it? How did you even come by that info?!
Much obliged for the input and education today, Philman
If I came off sounding gruff accept my apology as that was not my intention.
Read my last post, boss- it all comes down the the Vienna Convention... I hope you’re right and not Dick Morris
I agree. However, we do have to be aware of the ways that this can be forced through.
People should be aware of the many ways in which it can be done.
Only knowledge, awareness and vigilance will prevent this treaty from being ratified.
“Only knowledge, awareness and vigilance will prevent this treaty from being ratified.”
I am putting a priority on VIGILANCE-
I’m not here to defend Dick Morris -and you sure seem to know what you are talking about- BUT remember, he’s not saying what’s ‘right’- he’s telling you what kind of stunt Obama could ATTEMPT to pull
And nothing would surprise me emanating from this vile regime anymore, Phil
“If I came off sounding gruff accept my apology as that was not my intention”
Not at all, that treaty link I posted in comments wasn’t helpful at all, you were totally right- did it in a rush before lunch lol
I learn more from Freepers than all other sources combined, it seems...
Lord...grant me patience and a joyful heart through all things.
OK now you’re gruff lol
Seriously, it was never ratified by the US, BUT some other nations that didn’t ratify STILL consider it binding... makes me fear what Obama may attempt, that’s what Morris is saying
I dunno if Wikipedia is any more trustworthy than Morris, but it says “Some countries that have not ratified the Convention recognize it as a restatement of customary law and binding upon them as such”
Sounds like an opening for Dear Leader to pull some stunt, that’s all I’m saying- and if he felt constrained by the US Constitution, that would pretty much be a first
The patriots had to first know that the Redcoats were indeed marching and how they would be going.
And when it was affirmed the lamps were then lit and their vigilance was rewarded.
One if by land, two if by sea.
They go hand in hand.
LOL...I see they've got a @ "" at the end of that sentence.
The State Dept. link at 115 says pretty much the same thing.
Sounds like an opening for Dear Leader to pull some stunt...
He better make it a damned good one and people better have the knowledge necessary to expose that stunt for what it is.
What about the knowledge of Obama’s recent history of ignoring any rule, law, or constitutional constraint that gets in his way?
EVERYTHING you say makes perfect sense, BUT I don’t think Morris’ argument -regardless of his personal credibility- should be too easily dismissed... as you yourself noted above.
Any who says ‘Obama can’t do this and he can’t do that’ is missing the point, imho- he will attempt anything he thinks he can possibly get away with!
Constitutional law and treaty technicalities mean little to him... meaning this info don’t do much for his opponents, either. If such knowledge allows one to rest assured “he can’t get away with this”, therein lies the real danger... that’s why I’m focused on vigilance, i.e. loopholes and even the most fringe possibilities of what this megalomaniac/narcissist MAY attempt to do- when his type is desperate, one shouldn’t restrain their imagination if they hope to restrain him
I don't believe this is a real danger because elections are very important to the powers that be. As long as we get to go out and pretend to vote for the candidates presented us by the PTB, we're not likely at all to revolt because we get to pretend that the system is "working".
In the mean time this is what is being argued...we're bound to a new treaty by a treaty that has never been ratified by Congress.
The kernels are popping.
“Obama will never sign such a document BEFORE the next election. Hes a libtard, but isnt totally brain-dead when it comes to his political survival.”
WELL, you would think, Smedley... yet a lot of people -not just Dick Morris- think Hillary IS going to sign it, and before the end of the month!
So yet ANOTHER cause for concern, in light of your observations... WHY are they signing it, overpowering such practical political concerns?
SO many thinks Obama does makes it look like he has ZERO concern about what the electorate thinks- like there’s never going to be another election again... is there?
And considering that NO ONE in any seat of power seems to have the courage to stand up to Obama. As long as he keeps saying and doing things and no one has courage to stand up and draw a line in the sand (and I mean first, our elected representatives before a regular citizen),then he will keep pushing and pushing and pushing. Things that we couldn’t have dreamed possible four years ago. It doesn’t matter what the treaty laws and conventions are if no one in power is willing to stand up and say YOU CAN’T DO THAT! And declare it null and void.
At least at the time of the founding, we had brave, courageous, outspoken ELECTED representatives who were speaking out and standing up to King George. Where are our principled leaders now? Whether in the Congress, Senate, Military?
Do votes in the Senate require scheduling and reasonable notification?
Thanks again Philman- I truly appreciate the input, research, and opinion.
I can’t dispute much of what you said, but I never, ever thought they’d pass ObamaCare by Reconcilliation nor would the SCOTUS re-write the law in order to force it through in service to Dear Leader, either!
Best err on the side of alarmism, then lol
Enjoy your day, sir
“Do votes in the Senate require scheduling and reasonable notification?”
The Senate’s own site says the schedule is updated “each day the Senate is in session”... DAILY doesn’t sound too re-assuring to me!
I guess we need those opposed to be there as long as the sesssion is open... even -nay, ESPECIALLY- in the upcoming lame duck sessions, even if Dingy keeps them there pretty much up until Xmas as he did last time
“And considering that NO ONE in any seat of power seems to have the courage to stand up to Obama... Where are our principled leaders now? Whether in the Congress, Senate, Military?”
Well, Obama got Patreus out of the way himself... and the GOP old guard has to this point kept the TEA Party out of positions of substantial influence, that’s where they are.
We’ve got Sheriff Joe, Jim DeMint, Paul Ryan, and a smattering of other stand-up guys/gals... but they are marginalized as ‘extremists’ by not just the left but the lily-livered in our own party as well.
And the bravest -and most threatening to the progs- the Palins, the Bachmanns, the Alan Wests- are systematically destroyed by the Soros machine/MSM before they get anywhere near the place where they can make a real difference.
All the MORE reason for us to KEEP FIGHTING, my friend
That’s why I think those that compare these times to the American Revolutionary times are not making a correct comparison. Neither our citizenry, our elected leadership, nor our press have much in common with those days. (I think the thoughts and feelings of our patriots are very similar, but I thinkthe external circumstances are much different.) We are in uncharted territory as to how to get out of this mess. Thank you for posting this- I’m with you -seeing what Obama has done so far, I wouldn’t put it past him to try anything.
“Thank you for posting this- Im with you -seeing what Obama has done so far, I wouldnt put it past him to try anything.”
We are of like mind here, BL... and heading into the fall, Obama on the eve of destruction is about as predictable as Bashar Al Assad as he wheels his chemical weapons out of storage- these dictator types don’t take defeat well without dragging half the world down with them
2. Treaties transmitted by the President to the Senate for ratification shall be resumed at the second or any subsequent session of the same Congress at the stage in which they were left at the final adjournment of the session at which they were transmitted; but all proceedings on treaties shall terminate with the Congress, and they shall be resumed at the commencement of the next Congress as if no proceedings had previously been had thereon.
See also...The Executive Calendar
This section identifies Treaties submitted by the President to the Senate for ratification, placed on the Executive Calendar with a sequentially assigned calendar number and ready for Senate floor consideration.
I can't stress this enough...Congressional Record OCTOBER 18, 2000
Can you see the significance?
Mr. Thomas used procedure to bypass the rules...as long as nobody objected, it was allowed.
Sigh... I need to go buy another 500 rounds of .308
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.