Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dick Morris: Obama to Sign UN Gun-Grab Treaty and RAM IT DOWN OUR THROATS
Reaganite Republican ^ | July 18, 2012 | Reaganite Republican

Posted on 07/18/2012 4:24:53 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-155 next last
To: Jim Noble; All

“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


101 posted on 07/18/2012 8:09:44 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
I'd be curious to know what the sources were for this research. If they were government-related, then you still don't know what was true. But, in either case, did it justify burning all men, women, and children to the ground on the chance that there might be some molestation going on? That gives a whole new meaning to "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" except now it's "burning the baby down with the alleged child rapists."

The government could have snagged Koresh at any time when he left his compound, but instead they launched a military assault which slaughtered everyone. Even if there had been genuine child rapists in there, this method is unacceptable.
102 posted on 07/18/2012 8:18:10 AM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

Yup, they went in to save the children by burning them up. I remember that day. April 19th. It was on my birthday.


103 posted on 07/18/2012 8:18:26 AM PDT by tsowellfan (http://www.cafenetamerica.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: tsowellfan

Boehner is a gutless piece of shit.


104 posted on 07/18/2012 8:19:59 AM PDT by Joe Boucher ((FUBO) Hey Mitt, F-you too pal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tsowellfan

“I wish we could all be like Texas. That’s 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


105 posted on 07/18/2012 8:22:14 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

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.


106 posted on 07/18/2012 8:22:37 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
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.

Well, I guess that's where we differ. I believe in our founding principles, and it doesn't take a personal tragedy for me to see the need for remedial action. Every time our government craps on the Constitution, I take it personally. I was pissed 20 years ago because I saw then what it meant and what it would inevitably lead to. I have just been waiting for the rest of the country to catch up.
107 posted on 07/18/2012 8:31:34 AM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

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.


108 posted on 07/18/2012 8:34:20 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I think there are more Oathkeepers out there than we realize. (I hope!)


109 posted on 07/18/2012 8:36:59 AM PDT by nanetteclaret (Unreconstructed Catholic Texan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: SECURE AMERICA

“Utter Nonsense.
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!


110 posted on 07/18/2012 8:39:20 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

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?


111 posted on 07/18/2012 8:43:22 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thank You Rush; All

Changed to Morris’ petition on my site, here’s the link

http://dickmorris.rallycongress.com/7175/gun-control/


112 posted on 07/18/2012 8:47:03 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: xzins; tx_eggman
Preventing it going through the Senate simply means that it has not met the 2/3rds requirement of Senate approval.

tx_eggman is right, xzins, you've got it wrong.

2/3 of Senators present can ratify a treaty.

For example...
@ PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 106th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

S10667

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A division has been requested.
Senators in favor of the ratification of this treaty, please raise their hand. (After a pause.) Those opposed will raise their hands.
With two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the affirmative, the resolution of ratification is agreed to.
Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Presiding Officer, the Senator from West Virginia, and the clerk.
By the way, just for information, these treaties were all approved by the Foreign Relations Committee on October 4 and 5.

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.
Executive Calendar

When a notice of intent to object is given to the appropriate leader, or their designee, and such notice is submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record and the Senate Executive Calendar, or following the objection to a unanimous consent to proceeding to, and, or disposition of, matters relating to nominations and treaties on their behalf, it shall be placed in the section of the Senate Executive Calendar entitled “Notice of Intent to Object ”. (S. Res. 28, 112th Congress) Don't forget the importance of this either... When a notice of intent to object is given to the appropriate leader, or their designee, and such notice is submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record and the Senate Executive Calendar...

It could be ratified due to one person simply not doing their job properly.

Senate Consideration of Treaties September 15, 2009

Under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the final vote on agreeing to the resolution of ratification, with whatever reservations or other propositions may have been attached to it, requires a vote of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting (a quorum being present). A two-thirds vote also is required to agree to a motion to postpone indefinitely further consideration of the treaty and accompanying resolution, because adopting that motion has the effect of disposing of the treaty permanently.

@ quorum
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.

113 posted on 07/18/2012 8:52:53 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge; All

“The President may bind the country to anything he may say or do until the Senate considers the treaty in full” (pg 93):

http://books.google.com/books?id=kwYsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=treaty+binding+until+senate+rejects+it&source=bl&ots=bU-bX4Srys&sig=Okd5_zB_W9Q2xxK4qpF_6FBNxLM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=M9wGUIa3A4Ow2QXWpZnOBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=treaty%20binding%20until%20senate%20rejects%20it&f=false

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.


114 posted on 07/18/2012 9:04:40 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican
This guy is talking out his backside!

Even the UN disagrees with him!
@UN Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) Treaty Section

1. Adoption
"Adoption" is the formal act by which the form and content of a proposed treaty text are established. As a general rule, the adoption of the text of a treaty takes place through the expression of the consent of the states participating in the treaty-making process. Treaties that are negotiated within an international organization will usually be adopted by a resolution of a representative organ of the organization whose membership more or less corresponds to the potential participation in the treaty in question. A treaty can also be adopted by an international conference which has specifically been convened for setting up the treaty, by a vote of two thirds of the states present and voting, unless, by the same majority, they have decided to apply a different rule.
[Art.9, Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties 1969]

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.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Is the United States a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties?
No. The United States signed the treaty on April 24, 1970. The U.S. Senate has not given its advice and consent to the treaty. The United States considers many of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to constitute customary international law on the law of treaties.

Good on Morris for calling attention to it, but he should at least know what he's talking about.

You got a video link?

115 posted on 07/18/2012 9:19:35 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

PS-

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


116 posted on 07/18/2012 9:23:29 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

How is Romney looking now, folks?


117 posted on 07/18/2012 9:25:58 AM PDT by EnquiringMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dubyajam

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.


118 posted on 07/18/2012 9:27:13 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican
“The President may bind the country to anything he may say or do until the Senate considers the treaty in full” (pg 93):

There is no such quote as that!
Here is the whole sentence, not the snippet you have up!

Whether, in conducting a negotiation consisting, it may be, of many successive steps, the President can bind the Government to anything he may do or say until the Senate has finally considered the entire scheme and has approved every point in it by a two-thirds vote is a question that involves the consideration of his powers as Chief Executive under the Constitution. They are as broad as is necessary for conducting and concluding negotiations with any foreign nation, and are, therefore, in that respect as broad as those of any such nation.

There are only two returns for "full" on pages 93-97 and neither of them go with your "quote".

119 posted on 07/18/2012 9:28:28 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican; All

I suggest everyone read reply 119 after reading reply 114.


120 posted on 07/18/2012 9:31:06 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; All

“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?


121 posted on 07/18/2012 9:31:40 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

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.


122 posted on 07/18/2012 9:39:23 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; All

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


123 posted on 07/18/2012 9:40:06 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; All

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgCZykVhS3o

Much obliged for the input and education today, Philman


124 posted on 07/18/2012 9:49:51 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; All

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.”


125 posted on 07/18/2012 10:02:04 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican
It says we can be bound to international treaties until the Senate looks at it... that’s the entire concern right there, no?
No, man! Go back and read what you linked to. Great Britain was bitching and we told them to stop whining.
Go back to page 88-92 at your link... Whereas a measure known as the Hepburn bill (H. R. 2538), which enables the President to take the initiative in securing the necessary right of way, was passed by the House of Representatives at the last session of Congress, and which is now awaiting the action of the Senate, and a failure to pass this bill at this session would involve a renewal of all legislation and further serious menace to the commercial, industrial, manufacturing, and agricultural interests of the entire United States, as well as of countries having reciprocal trade relations with us; and

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.


This is about a domestic bill!
Back to 93-97... Great Britain, therefore, must recognize the fact that in signing these protocols the United States openly disregards the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and this new fact brings forward the question of the violation of that treaty in a form that can not be avoided.

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.

And what are these "new facts" you ask? Back we go to 88-92 New facts, creating a new situation, have been imported into the canal question, which demand most careful consideration and decisive action, it is the act of the United States, lawfully accomplished, which has given important and unquestionable rights to two other independent Republics, and also to the United States, in exact accordance with the language and spirit of the House bill 2538.

Did you even read any of it before you linked to it? How did you even come by that info?!

126 posted on 07/18/2012 10:06:37 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican
OKAY- I found the clip, he IS relying on the Vienna Convention, which we have signed, to implement the ATT WITHOUT Senate ratification
I don't trust a single thing that man says...ever!

Much obliged for the input and education today, Philman
If I came off sounding gruff accept my apology as that was not my intention.

127 posted on 07/18/2012 10:11:07 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Read my last post, boss- it all comes down the the Vienna Convention... I hope you’re right and not Dick Morris


128 posted on 07/18/2012 10:13:29 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: xzins
However, the point is that the president cannot unilaterally sign a treaty AND have that treaty be the supreme law of the land.

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.

129 posted on 07/18/2012 10:16:30 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; All

“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


130 posted on 07/18/2012 10:22:12 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“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...


131 posted on 07/18/2012 10:29:33 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican
...it all comes down the the Vienna Convention...

Lord...grant me patience and a joyful heart through all things.

@ Treaties Pending in the Senate (updated as of May 18, 2012)

4. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, done at Vienna May 23, 1969, and signed by the United States on April 24, 1970 (Treaty Doc.: Ex. L, 92nd Cong., 1st Sess.); submitted to Senate November 22, 1971.
132 posted on 07/18/2012 10:33:02 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

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


133 posted on 07/18/2012 10:44:36 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican
I am putting a priority on VIGILANCE-
IMO vigilance without knowledge is wasted effort.

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.

134 posted on 07/18/2012 10:47:21 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican
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”

LOL...I see they've got a @ "[citation needed]" at the end of that sentence.
The State Dept. link at 115 says pretty much the same thing.

The United States considers many of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to constitute customary international law on the law of treaties. That page also says this... There are 111 state parties that have ratified the convention,[7] and 15 states have signed but have not ratified the convention. These countries are: Afghanistan, Bolivia, Cambodia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Iran, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Madagascar, Nepal, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago, United States, Zambia. Even Wikipedia refutes Morris.

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.

135 posted on 07/18/2012 10:59:50 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

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

jmho


136 posted on 07/18/2012 11:00:57 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
I counsel caution. Obama is indeed attempting to push a revolt to give him the excuse to suspend the Constitution, invoke Martial Law and stop the elections.

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".

137 posted on 07/18/2012 11:27:30 AM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican
I don’t think Morris’ argument...should be too easily dismissed...
I would imagine that this will become a much more "current event" as more people weigh in during the upcoming days and weeks.

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.

138 posted on 07/18/2012 11:29:00 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Smedley; All

“Obama will never sign such a document BEFORE the next election. He’s a libtard, but isn’t 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?


139 posted on 07/18/2012 11:32:30 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

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?


140 posted on 07/18/2012 11:32:44 AM PDT by boxlunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Do votes in the Senate require scheduling and reasonable notification?


141 posted on 07/18/2012 11:36:35 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

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


142 posted on 07/18/2012 11:36:41 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

“Do votes in the Senate require scheduling and reasonable notification?”

Good question!

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!

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/one_item_and_teasers/Senate_leg_calendar_page.htm

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


143 posted on 07/18/2012 11:41:37 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: boxlunch

“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


144 posted on 07/18/2012 11:50:38 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

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.


145 posted on 07/18/2012 11:59:00 AM PDT by boxlunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: boxlunch

“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.”
____________________________________________________________

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


146 posted on 07/18/2012 12:04:07 PM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
Do votes in the Senate require scheduling and reasonable notification?
Treaties are handled in Executive Session.

@ Rules of the Senate

@ XXX. EXECUTIVE SESSION - PROCEEDINGS ON TREATIES

1. (a) When a treaty shall be laid before the Senate for ratification, it shall be read a first time; and no motion in respect to it shall be in order, except to refer it to a committee, to print it in confidence for the use of the Senate, or to remove the injunction of secrecy.
(b) When a treaty is reported from a committee with or without amendment, it shall, unless the Senate unanimously otherwise directs, lie over one day for consideration; after which it may be read a second time, after which amendments may be proposed. At any stage of such proceedings the Senate may remove the injunction of secrecy from the treaty.
(c) The decisions thus made shall be reduced to the form of a resolution of ratification, with or without amendments, as the case may be, which shall be proposed on a subsequent day, unless, by unanimous consent, the Senate determine otherwise, at which stage no amendment to the treaty shall be received unless by unanimous consent; but the resolution of ratification when pending shall be open to amendment in the form of reservations, declarations, statements, or understandings.
(d) On the final question to advise and consent to the ratification in the form agreed to, the concurrence of two thirds of the Senators present shall be necessary to determine it in the affirmative; but all other motions and questions upon a treaty shall be decided by a majority vote, except a motion to postpone indefinitely, which shall be decided by a vote of two thirds.

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.

Regarding the injunction of secrecy see Rule XXIX Executive Sessions 2. When acting upon confidential or Executive business, unless the same shall be considered in open Executive session, the Senate Chamber shall be cleared of all persons except the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary, the Principal Legislative Clerk, the Parliamentarian, the Executive Clerk, the Minute and Journal Clerk, the Sergeant at Arms, the Secretaries to the Majority and the Minority, and such other officers as the Presiding Officer shall think necessary; and all such officers shall be sworn to secrecy.
3. All confidential communications made by the President of the United States to the Senate shall be by the Senators and the officers of the Senate kept secret; and all treaties which may be laid before the Senate, and all remarks, votes, and proceedings thereon shall also be kept secret, until the Senate shall, by their resolution, take off the injunction of secrecy.

See also...The Executive Calendar

The Senate's Executive Calendar is updated each day the Senate is in session. The calendar identifies executive resolutions, treaties, and nominations reported out by Senate committee(s) and awaiting Senate floor action. The Executive Calendar is composed of eight sections described below.

Treaties
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.

There is a link to the Calendar there and it is updated daily.
So yes, as I understand it, scheduling and reasonable notification is required. Simply calling for an Executive Session from the floor is a notification.
Someone has to be there to make sure the quorum call isn't rescinded.

I can't stress this enough...Congressional Record OCTOBER 18, 2000

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Can you see the significance?

147 posted on 07/18/2012 12:21:56 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
One more point...
Again we have to consider floor action. See above Congressional Record link and specifically page S10658. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following treaties on today’s Executive Calendar. They will consist of Nos. 20 through 53.
I further ask unanimous consent that the treaties be considered as having passed through their various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolutions of ratification; all committee provisos, reservations, understandings, declarations be considered and agreed to; that any statements be printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD as if read; further, that when the resolutions of ratification are voted upon, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be notified of the Senate’s action, and that following the disposition of the treaties, the Senate return to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the clerk report each treaty by title prior to the vote on each treaty, and further I ask for a division vote on each resolution of ratification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. The treaties will be considered to have passed through their various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolutions of ratification, which the clerk will report.

Mr. Thomas used procedure to bypass the rules...as long as nobody objected, it was allowed.

148 posted on 07/18/2012 12:38:28 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
One more point and I'm done... ...it shall be read a first time...
Be sure you read that floor comment above... ...be printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD as if read... When this treaty does get brought the first time, and who doubts that it won't be given the propensity of liberals to disarm Americans, this treaty can be printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD as if read as well.
Floor action is very important and procedure can bypass the rules.
149 posted on 07/18/2012 12:50:05 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

Sigh... I need to go buy another 500 rounds of .308


150 posted on 07/18/2012 12:59:06 PM PDT by EdReform (Oath Keepers - Guardians of the Republic - Honor your oath - Join us: www.oathkeepers.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-155 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson